From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xtables: add cluster match Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:27:45 +0100 Message-ID: <499985F1.6070004@netfilter.org> References: <20090214192936.11718.44732.stgit@Decadence> <49994643.8010001@trash.net> <499971CC.6040903@netfilter.org> <49997247.3010105@trash.net> <4999787C.7050203@netfilter.org> <499982CB.7020503@netfilter.org> <499981FA.3040106@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:58567 "EHLO us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750814AbZBPPTg (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:19:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <499981FA.3040106@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>> Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>> I see. That kind of makes sense, but if you're running a >>>> synchronization daemon anyways, you might as well renumber >>>> all nodes so you still have proper balancing, right? >> >> Hm, I was not replying to your question ;). Right, the renumbering >> also requires getting the states back to the original node. We can use >> the same hashing approach in userspace to know which states belong to >> original node that has come back to life when it requests a >> resynchronization. >> >>> Indeed, the daemon may also add a new rule for the node that has gone >>> down but that results in another extra hash operation to mark it or >>> not (one extra hash per rule) :(. >> >> This is not true. We may have something like this (assuming two nodes): > > To whom are you replying now? :) To myself, never mind :) >> if no mark set and hash % 2 == 0, accept >> if no mark set and hash % 2 == 1, accept >> if no mark set, drop >> >> So we can still do this adding rules with the iptables interface. But >> still having the /proc looks like a simple interface for this. > > I'm sure someone would argue that changing TCP port numbers of > the tcp match through proc would be a nice and simple interface. > The fact though is that we have an interface for handing a > configuration to the kernel and this is clearly a configuration > parameter. We're missing a proper way to use it in userspace > from within programs (well, hopefully not for long anymore), > but that needs to be fixed in userspace. Right right, I have no more arguments to support the /proc interface ;). I'll send you a patch without it late at night. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers