From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] tcp: fix mark propagation with fwmark_reflect enabled Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:28:46 -0800 Message-ID: <1485458926.5145.156.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> References: <1485448687-6072-1-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> <1485448687-6072-3-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> <1485453760.5145.144.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <20170126191935.GA26591@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170126191935.GA26591@salvia> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 20:19 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Right. This is not percpu as in IPv4. > > I can send a follow up patch to get this in sync with the way we do it > in IPv4, ie. add percpu socket. > > Fine with this approach? Thanks! Not really. percpu sockets are going to slow down network namespace creation / deletion and increase memory foot print. IPv6 is cleaner because it does not really have to use different sockets. Ultimately would would like to have the same for IPv4. I would rather carry the mark either in an additional parameter, or in the flow that is already passed as a parameter.