Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 18:30:35 +0200
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, tyhicks@canonical.com,
        kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, fw@strlen.de, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com,
        nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        richardrose@google.com, vapier@chromium.org, bhthompson@google.com,
        smbarber@chromium.org, joelhockey@chromium.org,
        ueberall@themenzentrisch.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 1/2] br_netfilter: add struct netns_brnf
Message-ID: <20190606163035.x7rvqdwubxiai5t6@salvia>
References: <20190606114142.15972-1-christian@brauner.io>
 <20190606114142.15972-2-christian@brauner.io>
 <20190606081440.61ea1c62@hermes.lan>
 <20190606151937.mdpalfk7urvv74ub@brauner.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190606151937.mdpalfk7urvv74ub@brauner.io>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 05:19:39PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:14:40AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu,  6 Jun 2019 13:41:41 +0200
> > Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> > 
> > > +struct netns_brnf {
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
> > > +	struct ctl_table_header *ctl_hdr;
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +	/* default value is 1 */
> > > +	int call_iptables;
> > > +	int call_ip6tables;
> > > +	int call_arptables;
> > > +
> > > +	/* default value is 0 */
> > > +	int filter_vlan_tagged;
> > > +	int filter_pppoe_tagged;
> > > +	int pass_vlan_indev;
> > > +};
> > 
> > Do you really need to waste four bytes for each
> > flag value. If you use a u8 that would work just as well.
> 
> I think we had discussed something like this but the problem why we
> can't do this stems from how the sysctl-table stuff is implemented.
> I distinctly remember that it couldn't be done with a flag due to that.

Could you define a pernet_operations object? I mean, define the id and size
fields, then pass it to register_pernet_subsys() for registration.
Similar to what we do in net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_CLUSTER.c, see
clusterip_net_ops and clusterip_pernet() for instance.