Re: Increasing skb->mark size
From: Lorenzo Colitti <hidden>
Date: 2015-11-30 02:10:58
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Florian Westphal [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
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.
Can those labels be set early enough in the stack to affect the source address chosen for outgoing connections?