Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Vasily Averin wrote:
>
>>Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+ for (i = 0; i < nf_conntrack_htable_size; i++) {
>>>+ hlist_for_each_entry(h, n, &nf_conntrack_hash[hash], hnode) {
>>>+ tmp = nf_ct_tuplehash_to_ctrack(h);
>>>+ if (!test_bit(IPS_ASSURED_BIT, &tmp->status))
>>>+ ct = tmp;
>>
>>
>>It is incorrect: you should break nested loop here too.
>
>
>
> No, as I said, we want the last entry of the chain.
Ideally we should do something like this I think (please let it be
correct :)):
+ for (i = 0; i < nf_conntrack_htable_size; i++) {
+ entries = 0;
+ hlist_for_each_entry(h, n, &nf_conntrack_hash[hash],
hnode) {
+ tmp = nf_ct_tuplehash_to_ctrack(h);
+ if (!test_bit(IPS_ASSURED_BIT, &tmp->status))
+ ct = tmp;
+ entries++;
+ }
+ if (ct)
+ break;
+ if ((cnt -= entries) <= 0)
+ break;
+ hash = (hash + 1) % nf_conntrack_htable_size;
}
So we always walk chains up to the end and NF_CT_EVICTION_RANGE is
just a minimum. This ensures we will always get the last entry *and*
we won't scan less entries than currently if someone has a chain
longer than 8 entries.
What do you think?
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
