Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 08:34:04PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > ... but that is doable in the sense that unregister can't fail. > > Right, but adding "unregister hooks" to the abort path breaks a > different scenario. This might unregister a hook that, because of a later > wake-up action, needs to stay there, because you cannot call register > a hook from the abort path, it's a bit of a whac-a-mole game. Argh, indeed. We'd have to re-scan the transaction log during preparation phase for each dormant on/off and chain add/delete to see if the action un-does an earlier pending one, then remove both if they cancel each other. > > I guess dormat tables are an exception and not the norm, so maybe > > unfounded concern. > > You are right that this approach incurs in the hook evaluation penalty > from the packet path. But I don't think there's a need to optimize > this feature at this stage Ok, I dislike optimizing too early as well. > So I'm just inclined to keep it simple while making sure that any > possible (silly) robot-generated sequence with this toggle works fine. Ok, lets use your approach then.
