On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:21:20PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 04/10/15 at 02:15pm, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > static int __netif_receive_skb_ingress(struct sk_buff *skb, bool pfmemalloc,
> > struct net_device *orig_dev)
> > {
> > @@ -3772,6 +3800,8 @@ skip_taps:
> > if (!skb)
> > return NET_RX_DROP;
> > #endif
> > + if (nf_hook_ingress_active(skb))
> > + return nf_hook_ingress(skb, pt_prev, orig_dev, pfmemalloc);
> >
> > return __netif_receive_skb_finish(skb, pfmemalloc, pt_prev, orig_dev);
> > }
>
> I would favour if we avoid for every subsystem to manage its ingress
> filter pointers in net_device. From a net_device perspective, all it
> takes is a single pointer which points to a single linked list of
> filters which need to be run through. These entries could represent
> an ingress qdisc or a netfilter chain or something else (L2 ingress
> qdisc?).
>
> I know it's only 24 bytes but I'm trying hard to keep net_device below
> 2K.
Then it would be probably good to investigate if we can come up with
some extension infrastructure for net_device (I think Patrick already
suggested this during netdev0.1), so things are allocated based on
available features.
--
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
