* CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS
@ 2015-01-25 5:51 Oleg
2015-01-25 11:22 ` CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS Florian Westphal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Oleg @ 2015-01-25 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
Hi, all.
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack procfs file is marked as obsolete in the recent
kernels. What's wrong with it? Or it's simply a new fashion to replace
simple file interface with anything else?
--
Nemanov Oleg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS
2015-01-25 5:51 CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS Oleg
@ 2015-01-25 11:22 ` Florian Westphal
2015-01-25 19:44 ` CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS Oleg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Florian Westphal @ 2015-01-25 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg; +Cc: netdev
Oleg <lego12239@yandex.ru> wrote:
> net/netfilter/nf_conntrack procfs file is marked as obsolete in the recent
> kernels. What's wrong with it? Or it's simply a new fashion to replace
> simple file interface with anything else?
proc has several drawbacks vs. ctnetlink:
- not extensible
- doesn't have ability to query for particular items
- no add/delete support
- no event notification (e.g. conntrack -E)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS
2015-01-25 11:22 ` CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS Florian Westphal
@ 2015-01-25 19:44 ` Oleg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Oleg @ 2015-01-25 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:22:09PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Oleg <lego12239@yandex.ru> wrote:
> > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack procfs file is marked as obsolete in the recent
> > kernels. What's wrong with it? Or it's simply a new fashion to replace
> > simple file interface with anything else?
>
> proc has several drawbacks vs. ctnetlink:
> - not extensible
In the what way?
Sorry, but i think that limitations isn't in proc, but in a human fantasy.
> - doesn't have ability to query for particular items
What about something like:
exec 3<>nf_conntrack; echo show tcp dport 12345 >&3; cat <&3
HERE_WE_GET_NEEDED_ENTRIES
exec 3<&-
?
> - no add/delete support
What about simple:
echo add ENTRY > nf_conntrack
echo delete ENTRY > nf_conntrack
?
> - no event notification (e.g. conntrack -E)
Florian, are you seriosly? What's wrong with simple:
cat nf_conntrack_event
?
Moreover, all things i have wrote save already existent scripts works.
May be i don't understand anything? Please correct me if so.
P.S. netlink is really cool thing, but i think we go in the wrong way.
--
Nemanov Oleg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-01-25 19:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-01-25 5:51 CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS Oleg
2015-01-25 11:22 ` CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS Florian Westphal
2015-01-25 19:44 ` CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS Oleg
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.