Al Boldi wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>Please send mails discussing netfilter to netfilter-devel.
>
>
> Ok. I just found out this changed to vger. But
> netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is bouncing me.
Seems to work, I got your mail on netfilter-devel.
>>Al Boldi wrote:
>>
>>>With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
>>>
>>>Other than requiring the REJECT target to be ported to the mangle table,
>>>is the filter table faster than the mangle table?
>>
>>There are some minor differences in ordering (mangle comes before
>>DNAT, filter afterwards), but for most rulesets thats completely
>>irrelevant. The only difference that really matters is that mangle
>>performs rerouting in LOCAL_OUT for packets that had their routing
>>key changed, so its really a superset of the filter table. If you
>>want to use REJECT in the mangle table, you just need to remove the
>>restriction to filter, it works fine. I would prefer to also remove
>>the restriction of MARK, CONNMARK etc. to mangle, they're used for
>>more than just routing today so that restriction also doesn't make
>>much sense. Patches for this are welcome.
>
>
> Something like this (untested):
>
> --- ipt_REJECT.bak.c 2007-10-12 08:25:17.000000000 +0300
> +++ ipt_REJECT.c 2007-10-12 08:31:44.000000000 +0300
> @@ -165,6 +165,7 @@ static void send_reset(struct sk_buff *o
>
> static inline void send_unreach(struct sk_buff *skb_in, int code)
> {
> + if (!skb_in->dst) ip_route_me_harder(&skb_in, RTN_UNSPEC);
> icmp_send(skb_in, ICMP_DEST_UNREACH, code, 0);
> }
>
> @@ -245,9 +246,6 @@ static struct xt_target ipt_reject_reg =
> .family = AF_INET,
> .target = reject,
> .targetsize = sizeof(struct ipt_reject_info),
> - .table = "filter",
> - .hooks = (1 << NF_IP_LOCAL_IN) | (1 << NF_IP_FORWARD) |
> - (1 << NF_IP_LOCAL_OUT),
> .checkentry = check,
> .me = THIS_MODULE,
> };
That includes an unrelated change, I meant to simply remove the filter
table restriction.
>>>If not, then shouldn't the filter table be obsoleted to avoid confusion?
>>
>>That would probably confuse people. Just don't use it if you don't
>>need to.
>
>
> The problem is that people think they are safe with the filter table, when in
> fact they need the prerouting chain to seal things. Right now this is only
> possible in the mangle table.
Why do they need PREROUTING?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
