Patrick McHardy wrote: > Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:54:16PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> Make untracked conntrack per-netns. Compare conntracks with relevant >>>> untracked one. >>>> >>>> The following code you'll start laughing at this code: >>>> >>>> if (ct == ct->ct_net->ct.untracked) >>>> ... >>>> >>>> let me remind you that ->ct_net is set in only one place, and never >>>> overwritten later. >>>> >>>> All of this requires some surgery with headers, otherwise horrible >>>> circular >>>> dependencies. And we lost nf_ct_is_untracked() as function, it >>>> became macro. >>> I think you could avoid this mess by using a struct nf_conntrack >>> for the untracked conntrack instead of struct nf_conn. It shouldn't >>> make any difference since its ignored anyways. >> >> Ewww, can I? > > I hope so :) A different possiblity suggest by Pablo some time ago > would be to mark untracked packets in skb->nfctinfo and not > attach a conntrack at all. Indeed, I remember that :). I left that patch of the table time ago [1]. There's a nf_reset call missing as Patrick said at that time. I can recover it if you like the idea. [1] http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-devel/2005-June/020171.html -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers -- 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
