Matt Bennett <matt.benn...@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 21:36 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > Matt Bennett <matt.benn...@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote: > > > I'm emailing this list for feedback on the feasibility of increasing > > > skb->mark or adding a new field for marking. Perhaps this extension > > > could be done under a new CONFIG option. Perhaps there are other ways we > > > could achieve the desired behaviour? > > > > Well I pointed you towards connlabels which provide 128 bit of space > > in the conntrack extension area but you did not tell me why you cannot > > use it. > Sorry, I moved the discussion to this list to hopefully gather some new > ideas/opinions. > > While connlabels provide 128bits of space skb->mark is still only 32 > bits. Since we are using connection tracking to simply restore skb->mark > the use of connlabels by itself doesn't solve the problem I outlined > above. skb->mark would still needs to be increased in size.
We have ctnetlink which allows direct setting of ctmark/ctlabels. Regarding ctlabels, they were originally designed to provide a bit-set so that ctmark could be used as an 'enumeration' type while ctlabels could be used to provide distinct, non-overlapping labels. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
