From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org"
<netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xtables: userspace notification target
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:34:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C3DE715.8070502@netfilter.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1279110169.20985.41.camel@chilepepper>
Hi Luciano,
On 14/07/10 14:22, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:48 +0200, ext Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> If you're using connection tracking, you can use conntrack marks
>> to avoid sending more than a single message:
>>
>> iptables ... -m connmark --mark 0x1/0x1 -j RETURN
>> iptables ... -j NFLOG ...
>> iptables ... -j CONNMARK --set-mark 0x1/0x1
>
> Cool, thanks.
>
> It seems that there are lots of possibilities to get this to work, but
> this is starting to get quite complex. I would still prefer having the
> NFNOTIF module included, since we would be able to do what we want in a
> very simple way. It's also probably much more efficient that using
> several rules, which would increase the CPU usage considerably (in our
> device we are already reaching the limit of a reasonable CPU resource
> usage with high throughput WLAN connections).
>
> While I agree that it is possible to achieve the NFNOTIF functionality
> with existing modules, I still think there is a "niche" for such module,
> because it is very simple, has a very clear purpose and would make the
> ruleset simpler and more efficient.
>
> Does this make any sense?
I don't think that the NFNOTIF infrastructure fulfill the policy for
inclusion. It seems to me like something quite specific for your needs.
It is simple, yes, but we already have this feature into the kernel. I
don't think that this will reduce CPU usage considerably with regards to
the NFLOG way.
I would still prefer adding the once-per-matching notification feature
to NFLOG than these extra lines in the kernel, Patrick?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-14 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-13 0:11 [PATCH] netfilter: xtables: userspace notification target Samuel Ortiz
2010-07-13 5:56 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-07-13 13:19 ` Samuel Ortiz
2010-07-13 6:18 ` Changli Gao
2010-07-13 8:50 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2010-07-13 10:23 ` Luciano Coelho
2010-07-13 11:49 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-07-13 13:24 ` Luciano Coelho
2010-07-13 16:38 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2010-07-14 11:48 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-07-14 12:22 ` Luciano Coelho
2010-07-14 16:34 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
2010-07-15 9:05 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-07-15 9:18 ` Luciano Coelho
2010-07-13 13:28 ` Samuel Ortiz
2010-07-13 14:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Samuel Ortiz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4C3DE715.8070502@netfilter.org \
--to=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=luciano.coelho@nokia.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sameo@linux.intel.com \
--cc=xiaosuo@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).