Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 04:00 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Currently we have a number of router features making use of connection > > > tracking. As such we now require more than the 32 bits connmark > > > currently has. Our first inclination is to extend this field to 64 bits > > > and update related areas of code appropriately. > > > > > > The major question we have is whether there is a reason this field is 32 > > > bits (performance reasons or other)? > > > > Its meant to align with skb->mark. > > I thought that could be the case. Probably the wrong mailing-list to be > asking this on but is increasing the number of bits for the skb->mark > then a possibility? Increase sk_buff size? Doubtful. > The number of bits available for marking becomes the > limiting factor when you have a number of applications needing to mark > packets. Now I am confused. You mentioned connmark. Are you marking packets or connections? Why are 2**32 marks not sufficient? -- 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
