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
