[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: [ANNOUNCE] Layer-7 Filter for Linux QoS]

To: Martin Josefsson <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ANNOUNCE] Layer-7 Filter for Linux QoS]
From: Jamal Hadi <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 08:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Ethan Sommer <sommere@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, biondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Martin Josefsson wrote:

> Maybe make it take a length parameter and if it's zero treat null's like
> all other algorithms do and it's non-zero use the length instead.
> Then you can hide it in a wrapper function for the "normal" case that
> just calls the actual search-function but with 0 as length.

Actually, the library that you pointed to seems to have callbacks
associated with every match - so it could be used on string matches.
The author is on the cc.

> Well we don't have a that big bread slicer (yet) but take a look at
> libqsearch, it is a library for searching and has been ported to the
> linux kernel by the author. It has support for various algorithms that

Didnt see anything kernel related in my quick scan.
The library certainly appears sane.

> have diffrent capabilities, unfortunately I don't think it has an
> algorithm that has support for regexp yet (the framework is there, ie
> the flag that says an algorithm supports regexp).
> It's modular and I don't think it should be that hard to add an regexp
> algorithm.

it does seems to imply regexp is available but wasnt anywhere i could

> It looks quite nice and it can search for multiple strings at the same
> time and call diffrent callbacks depending on which string matched.

yep, can sed that packet easily with those callbacks ;-> s/val/val2/g

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Ethan Sommer wrote:

> One thing I should have pointed out earlier, it only copies that
> memory/does regex stuff until it finds a match or the first 8 packets,
> whichever is less. So, at least based on my tests, it doesn't seem to
> slow down 100BT much from what it would be otherwise. We might run into
> trouble if we look at GB or 10GB, but until we find a problem with
> speed, I think it is probably more important to make this as simple and
> easy to maintain as possible. If we see a need to make it more
> complicated due to speed issues, _then_ we should think about trying to
> get rid of that copy.

I think you should do some measurements - "it  doesnt slow 100Mbps" and
"lets worry about it when we get to 1 or 10Gbps" are handwaving at best.
Infact i would strongly recommend looking at the libqpsearch above.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>