On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 2012-12-05 20:28, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > >>Somehow, the first part of this email went missing. Not critical, >>but for completeness: >> >>These two patches each add an xtables match. >> >>The xt_priority match is a straighforward addition in the style of >>xt_mark, adding the option to filter on one more sk_buff field. I >>have an immediate application for this. The amount of code (in >>kernel + userspace) to add a single check proved quite large. > > Hm so yeah, can't we just place this in xt_mark.c? I'm happy to do so, but note that that breaks the custom of having one static struct xt_$NAME for each file xt_$NAME.[ch]. It may be reasonable, as the same issue may keep popping up as additional sk_buff fields are found useful for filtering. For instance, skb->queue_mapping could be used in conjuction with network flow classification (ethtool -N). All the ancillary data accessible from BPF likely has some use and could be ported to iptables (rxhash, pkt_type, ...). To avoid rule explosion, I considered an xt_skbuff match rule that applies the same mask operation, range and inversion tests, and takes a field id to select the sk_buff field to operate on. I think the BPF patch is a better long term solution. -- 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
