* xt_conntrack structure size
@ 2008-02-17 1:23 Jan Engelhardt
2008-02-18 15:13 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2008-02-17 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kaber; +Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List
Hi,
talking with SiegeX6 on IRC we found consensus that the struct
xt_conntrack_mtinfo1 is just too fat -- 88 bytes if I counted right. 64
of that go away for supporting IPv6 masking, which is plenty. We could
use a uint8_t CIDR field instead of 'union nf_inet_addr origsrc_mask',
and use a lookup table:
static const struct {
union nf_inet_addr expanded;
unsigned char contracted;
} table[] = {
{IN6_ADDR(0000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 0},
{IN6_ADDR(8000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 1},
{IN6_ADDR(c000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 2},
{IN6_ADDR(e000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 3},
{IN6_ADDR(f000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 4},
{IN6_ADDR(f800,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 5},
/* and so on */
};
This would cost us 2048 bytes once. Everything that uses IPv6
CIDR<->mask transformation could use this.
- xt_conntrack: save 60 bytes per struct
- xt_hashlimit: save on some static computation power
(currently, xt_hashlimit computes the mask from CIDR during
rule insertion)
- xt_connlimit: save 15 bytes per struct (realistically: 12, due to
aligned(8) padding)
- xt_policy: save 30 bytes per struct (realistically 24)
- ipt_entry, ip6t_entry: basically, these too, but it would touch
a non-revisionable structure - can't break it
- probably tons of other code in non-netfilter areas in net/
Are there any objections to having this big table?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: xt_conntrack structure size
2008-02-17 1:23 xt_conntrack structure size Jan Engelhardt
@ 2008-02-18 15:13 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2008-02-18 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> talking with SiegeX6 on IRC we found consensus that the struct
> xt_conntrack_mtinfo1 is just too fat -- 88 bytes if I counted right. 64
> of that go away for supporting IPv6 masking, which is plenty. We could
> use a uint8_t CIDR field instead of 'union nf_inet_addr origsrc_mask',
> and use a lookup table:
> static const struct {
> union nf_inet_addr expanded;
> unsigned char contracted;
> } table[] = {
> {IN6_ADDR(0000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 0},
> {IN6_ADDR(8000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 1},
> {IN6_ADDR(c000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 2},
> {IN6_ADDR(e000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 3},
> {IN6_ADDR(f000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 4},
> {IN6_ADDR(f800,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), 5},
> /* and so on */
> };
> This would cost us 2048 bytes once. Everything that uses IPv6
> CIDR<->mask transformation could use this.
>
> - xt_conntrack: save 60 bytes per struct
>
> - xt_hashlimit: save on some static computation power
> (currently, xt_hashlimit computes the mask from CIDR during
> rule insertion)
>
> - xt_connlimit: save 15 bytes per struct (realistically: 12, due to
> aligned(8) padding)
>
> - xt_policy: save 30 bytes per struct (realistically 24)
>
> - ipt_entry, ip6t_entry: basically, these too, but it would touch
> a non-revisionable structure - can't break it
>
> - probably tons of other code in non-netfilter areas in net/
>
> Are there any objections to having this big table?
Not against the table itself, but I would like to keep the
different revisions to the necessary minimum.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-02-18 15:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-02-17 1:23 xt_conntrack structure size Jan Engelhardt
2008-02-18 15:13 ` Patrick McHardy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).