From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 23:05:16 +0200
> Ah, right, that could work. Is there any particular field in sk_buff > we should stomp on for this purpose, or would you prefer a new one? > Looking through it, the only obvious one that comes to mind is, well, > skb->_nfct :) > > If we wanted to avoid bloating sk_buff, we could add a union with that, > fill it in the flow dissector, and just let conntrack overwrite it if > active; then detect which is which in Cake, and read the data we need > from _nfct if conntrack is active, and from what the flow dissector > stored otherwise. > > Is that too many hoops to jump through to avoid adding an extra field? Space is precious in sk_buff, so yes avoid adding new members at all costs. How much info do you need exactly?
