On Wednesday 2012-12-05 22:45, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >>>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]. The custom is long gone (just look at xt_mark.c ;-), because the module overhead is so much more than a function with an assignment/readout. >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. I can't disagree. -- 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
