On 26.11, Florian Westphal wrote: > Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > True, good point. In that case I would propose to get rid of "packet" > > > message type completely. > > > > > > Instead we'd include all the info that we currently have in "packet" > > > (i.e. vlanid, headers) on the first message type fired on each nft_do_chain() > > > invocation. > > > > > > We can also move IIF/OIF info to this 'initial' message > > > (which might be of any type depending on the ruleset, due to POLICY > > > type we would however always send at least one, even if there are no > > > matches). > > > > > > The price to be paid would be a new variable that we have to keep > > > on-stack to know when we can elide the extra packet data. > > > > > > Does that sound reasonable? > > > > Sure, but is that really easier than including an unconditional (well, > > skb->nf_trace == 1) call to nf_tables_trace_notify() before entering > > the main loop? I don't see anything wrong the the packet message itself, > > just thinking it might be useful to emit one more in this specific > > spot. > > Its not easier, but it will keep the number of messages lower. > > AFAIU with nf_tables_trace_notify() for each nft_do_chain() we will > have one more message for each table/hook combo... Hmm... Yeah that's really a bit unfortunate since we actually only care about the first chain on every hook I guess. Basically once per hook, but it seems we really need to use once per base chain unless we go deeper down in the stack. > I I'll see how painful the extra test for 'i have sent packet data > for this nft_do_chain invocation' is, if its too complicated > I'll move the nf_tables_trace_notify from nft_meta to nft_do_chain. > > Let me know in case you spot a problem with that rationale. No, that seems reasonable to me. -- 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
