On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:52:18PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 09:35:34AM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > Allow users to use a simpler way to specify probalistic matching, e. g.: > > > > > > meta probability 0.5 (match approx. every 2nd packet) > > > meta probability 0.001 (match approx. once every 1000 packets) > > > > > > nft list will still show > > > meta random <= 2147483647 > > > meta random <= 4294967 > > > > I don't like this asymmetry. > > Its changed in patch #3 when adding the shorthand reverse > translation. But if the user introduces a meta random value that can be mapped to probability datatype, we would still hit this asymmetry, right? So the guess game would fail and the user would get confused. > > What is the usecase for 'meta random' out of this probability case that > > maps to what xt_statistics offers? > > Nothing, but the meta random might be interesting to e.g. set random > (ct)mark for load balancing purposes. Could you have a look at the libnftnl userdata tlv infrastructure? We can probably place this information the RULE_USERDATA so we provide an explicit indication to userspace of how to interpret this. Currently this is only used for rule comments, but we can stash this how-to-interpret-this information there. The idea is to keep this information around as context in the delinearize step, so we can replace the default datatype that is assigned to the one that displays this as a probability from the rule_parse_postprocess() phase. -- 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
