From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] netfilter: conntrack: optional reliable conntrack event delivery Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:01:29 +0200 Message-ID: <4A2F9289.6000502@trash.net> References: <20090604110307.6702.10147.stgit@Decadence> <20090604110841.6702.76228.stgit@Decadence> <4A292DB7.4000000@trash.net> <4A2EE3D2.1090007@netfilter.org> <4A2EE5A3.2000502@trash.net> <4A2EE610.9020207@trash.net> <4A2EE907.70609@netfilter.org> <4A2F09D9.7090507@gmail.com> <4A2F830C.9020403@trash.net> <4A2F8CC7.2010708@netfilter.org> <4A2F9120.9010904@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:55424 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751346AbZFJLB3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:01:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A2F9120.9010904@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> Can you see any problem with this optimistic approach? I know, it can >> potentially try to restore the cache, but this is very unlikely to >> happen? > > Its probably quite unlikely, so not a big issue. OTOH this is > effectively doing something quite similar to a spinlock. Maybe > its finally time to add per-conntrack locking. > > Eric even had a patch for this IIRC :) I'll take a quick stab at this, will let you know in 30-60 minutes.