On 6/11/2019 11:23 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:34:50PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>> Paul Blakey <pa...@mellanox.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 6/11/2019 4:59 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>>>> Paul Blakey <pa...@mellanox.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Allow sending a packet to conntrack and set conntrack zone, mark, >>>>>> labels and nat parameters. >>>>> How is this different from the newly merged ctinfo action? >>>>> >>>>> -Toke >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> ctinfo does one of two very specific things, >>>> >>>> 1) copies DSCP values that have been placed in the firewall conntrack >>>> mark back into the IPv4/v6 diffserv field >>>> >>>> 2) copies the firewall conntrack mark to the skb's mark field (like >>>> act_connmark) >>>> >>>> Originally ctinfo action was named conndscp (then conntrack, which is >>>> what our ct shorthand stands for). >>>> >>>> We also talked about merging both at some point, but they seem only >>>> coincidentally related. >>> Well, I'm predicting it will create some confusion to have them so >>> closely named... Not sure what the best way to fix that is, though...? >> I had suggested to let act_ct handle the above as well, as there is a >> big chunk of code on both that is pretty similar. There is quite some >> boilerplate for interfacing with conntrack which is duplicated. >> But it was considered that the end actions are unrelated, and ctinfo >> went ahead. (I'm still not convinced of that, btw) >> >> Other than this, which is not an option anymore, I don't see a way to >> avoid confusion here. Seems anything we pick now will be confusing >> because ctinfo is a generic name, and we also need one here. > Hmm, yeah, dunno if I have any better ideas for naming that would avoid > this. act_runct ? Meh... > > -Toke
If it's fine with you guys, can we keep the name act_ct ? :)
