lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Network changes and netfilter
Date
In message <200002110003.QAA05540@pizda.ninka.net> you write:
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:02:58 +0100
> From: "Carlo E. Prelz" <fluido@fluidware.com>
>
> Is it in any way easy to substitute the 5 calls to synchronize_bh
> in the NAT code?
>
> The NAT code needs to be fixed up to be SMP safe, and use
> the proper spinlocking to work with the fully threaded
> IP stack now present in 2.3.43 and onward.

It *is* SMP safe (or should be); all the synchronize_bh() calls are
done on module removal, to avoid a icky-to-solve race.

This module removal problem would be solved elegently by Alexey's
suggested module scheme, but for the moment, I'll just remove the
calls (ie. don't rmmod under SMP on heavy network traffic).

> (Rusty: hint hint, if the netfilter modules were part of the
> standard kernel, Alexey and myself would have almost
> certainly done this work for you, hint hint)

Yeah yeah I know. But NAT control interface sucks badly, and I wanted
to fix it first. Got a little... distracted... writing tests and all
that software engineering shit.

TODO looks vaguely like:
Finish ipnatctl removal (ie. 0.90 branch of netfilter modules).
Put conntrack field in skb.
Merge James Morris's netlink-to-userspace patch.
Add more cursing.
Merge with official kernel.
Sleep
Document
Shitload of testing.

There's some random code-neating in there, too.

Does that sound ok?
Rusty.
--
Hacking time.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.020 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site