Re: [xtables-addons][PATCH 0/2] Misc ipset issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Kevin Locke wrote:

> I ran across a few issues getting ipset to work on my system and
> wanted to bring them up here for consideration.
> 
> The first is that in 2.6.33-rc1, sk_buff->iff was renamed to
> sk_buff->skb_iif, which breaks compilation on kernels going forward.
> 
> The second issue is that the setlist module is currently not being
> built which results in "ipset v4.1: Unknown set type" when attempting
> to create a set of this type (as documented in the man page).  I'm not
> sure if this is intentional (if it is, feel free to ignore that
> patch), but in my experience it has worked quite well with the
> exception of -T not working as expected (or at all AFAICT).

These are xtables-addons related issues, Jan'll take care of them.
 
> Another issue, for which I did not include a patch, is how automatic
> resizing of hash tables is handled.  If I restore a file (created
> outside ipset) which contains somewhere near (but less than) 65000
> entries which do not hash to unique values I start getting log
> messages like the following:
> 
> /usr/src/modules/xtables-addons/ipset/ip_set_nethash.c: nethash_retry: rehashing of set setname triggered: hashsize grows from 44319 to 66478
> /usr/src/modules/xtables-addons/ipset/ip_set_nethash.c: nethash_retry: rehashing of set setname triggered: hashsize grows from 66478 to 99717
> 
> and ipset -R silently fails to restore the rest of the file (returning
> exit code 0).  I realize that there may be some code to deal with this
> during save (or when adding entries using -A), but it would be very
> helpful if the user could be warned about the failure during -R as
> well. 

You are hitting the internal (and somewhat artifical) limit of max 65535 
entries in a set. When rehashing, the next tried hash size was larger than 
the limit so it failed. It should be reported back, you are right.

> As a side note:  One use case is when building a large set it
> is significantly (on the order of 1000 times on my test system) faster
> to build the list and use -R than individually with -A).

That's normal, restore mode spares a lot of system calls.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux