[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] bridge-nf -- map IPv4 hooks onto bridge hooks, vs 2.5.42
       From: Bart De Schuymer <>
    Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:58:53 +0200

    Can the bridge code go fill in a skb->dst and skb->dst->hh? Is this
    considered clean?

    If it is a properly formed 'dst' entry, it will get cleaned up
    at SKB free and there will be no problems.

    > 3) The bridging layer changes need to be approved by Lennert.
    > But I'd suggest working out #1 and #2 first.

    So if I change
    struct nf_conntrack {

    You shouldn't be touching nf_conntrack, you should perhaps
    instead do something like:

    struct nf_ct_info {
    union {
    struct nf_conntrack *master;
    struct nf_bridge_info *brinfo;
    } u;

    But again, you need to get these sorts of extensions and core
    changes approved by the netfilter team.

    I'm the wrong person to ask about how they would prefer this
    stuff be done.

    So if you want this in the kernel you'll have to be forgiving. Or
    present a nice solution, because I and probably Lennert really
    don't see a nice(r) solution.

    It is my job to show you why a piece of code isn't going
    to go in. It is not my job to help you dream up a better

    Because, frankly I don't care about bridge netfiltering.

    I do care about keeping the code as clean as possible so I don't
    run into road blocks when trying to rework input/output processing
    just because I let some bogon hack into the tree I must continue to

    You do care about bridge netfiltering, so you are going to be the
    one to find the clean solution that doesn't touch net/ipv4/*.c :-)

    This is life in the kernel hacking community :-)

    So, the best solution I can think of is adding a skbuff->brnf pointer to a
    struct brnf_data. This will get rid of the copy in ip_output.c. Is that
    enough? This will uglify the ip_tables.c patch however.

    That could work too, I think you'll need to specify a seperate
    destructor in that case, and all this stuff ifdef'd on whether
    bridge netfiltering is enabled or not.

    Again, talk to the netfilter folks. They may even have ideas
    for you that you haven't dreamt of yet.

    Franks a lot,
    David S. Miller
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.021 / U:8.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site