On 10/19/2011 04:55 PM, David Stevens wrote:
-----Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: -----
>
> The problem is that at the moment rules (in the 'root' table) can
> have priorities [0, 1000]. So nothing prevents one to write a
>rule
> with priority 0. However, due to how nwfilters works right now
>the
> jumps into the protocol-specific tables will always be created
> *before* those rules. I am trying to address this now with
>assigning
> negative numbers to the chains to achieve the same sorting and
> maintain backwards compatibility.
Priorities aren't directly line numbers, but I think
extending negative
numbers to be "from the end" as ebtables/iptables would be a
useful
thing (and less arcane due to the precedent already there).
But since you are extending to allow more chains, couldn't
you
in fact just expose the root chain to XML and create a default
that
It's already exposed.. you can add the following rule to the
'clean-traffic' filter
<rule action='' direction='inout' priority='999'>
<arp/>
</rule>
and it will appear in the interface root chain.
does the
protocol switch that's generated in code now? Then, you
The protocol 'switch', assuming we both talk about 'the same',
becomes a lot more flexible and dynamic with this patch series. It
lets you insert jumps to new chains (whose names have known protocol
names as prefixes) and interleave them with rules in the 'root'
table.
could insert
new chains before the standard ones, reorder, or do
anything you want -- with "RETURN" as the policy or action for
acceptable
frames in the early chains so later chains are still run.
I do have the intention to accept your 'RETURN' and 'CONTINUE'
patch. So that's not going to be the problem. I just have some
concerns about how the multiple IP address support is implemented. I
don't think it works with multiples of anything else than what is in
the IP variable, i.e., comma-separated 'items' in other variables.
If you
didn't want to expose libvirt-{I,O}-vnetXX chains, couldn't you
at least accomplish the same thing with new chains in the
code-generated
chains by adding a "pre-protocol" chain assuming "RETURN" is
available.
Then, a filter that adds to "pre-protocol" (or whatever you call
it) would always
happen before the standard chains. A similar chain hook could be
done for
post-protocol chains, if those were converted to do "RETURN"
instead of
ACCEPT/DROP too.
> Using priorities in multiple places is very
> like programming in basic
>
> and what both ebtables/iptables and nwfilters could use
>better
> I think would
>
> be the capability to label rules by name and reference
d
> label to identify the
>
> rule location. Then you might, e.g., add a rule at "myrules
>+
> 5" and don't care
>
> what particular priority/line number "myrules" is.
>
>
>
> You have patches for that?
Actually, you do. If the labels are new chains then
the existing priority within that chain is essentially the same.
But the
existing priority mechanism doesn't have the full flexibility
available in
ebtables/iptables with "insert before", "append", "offset from
beginning",
"offset from end". Wouldn't you get that with the combination of
user-defined
chains, a user-modifiable root chain, and priorities
interpretted like this:
Priorities are used for sorting and not for absolute position of a
rule within a chain. You can compose filters of building blocks and
leave some building blocks out and you'll end up missing rules with
certain priorities. So the mapping to positions from priorities
directly is not possible in that way.
Stefan
0 - insert at
beginning
N - insert at N
MAX - append at end (and this ought to be 2G-1, not 1000)
-N - insert at END-N.
?
+-DLS
|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list