Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] net: move qdisc ingress filtering on top of netfilter ingress hooks

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:36:34 +0200

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 06:09:25PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> I think both have different use cases, though, but on cls_bpf side you
> have maps infrastructure that is evolving as well. Not really speaking
> about the other remaining classifiers, however. I also don't want to go
> any further into this vim vs emacs debate. ;) And, personally, I also
> don't have any issue offering alternatives to users.
> 
> However, I still disagree with moving ingress behind this artificial
> barrier if it's just not necessary. I believe, in your RFC v1 patch,
> you had a second ingress hook as a static key for nft, I tend to like
> that much better consensus-wise. Both subsystems should not put
> unnecessary barriers into their way, really.

I'm evolving to think that it would be good to have a single entry
point for ingress filtering.

But where are the barriers? These unfounded performance claims are
simply absurd, qdisc ingress barely performs a bit better just because
it executes a bit less code and only in the single CPU scenario with
no rules at all.