> On 3 Feb 2023, at 16:08, Mark Michelson wrote:
>
> On 1/25/23 05:36, Abhiram Sangana wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>> I have replied to your comments. Can you please have a look when you get a
>> chance?
>
> I had a look at the code itself, and from a purely mechanical perspective, I
> can't see
On 1/25/23 05:36, Abhiram Sangana wrote:
Hi Mark,
I have replied to your comments. Can you please have a look when you get a
chance?
I had a look at the code itself, and from a purely mechanical
perspective, I can't see anything wrong with it. I have some high level
comments down below,
Hi Mark,
I have replied to your comments. Can you please have a look when you get a
chance?
Thanks,
Abhiram Sangana
> On 17 Jan 2023, at 12:37, Abhiram Sangana wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>
>> On 16 Jan 2023, at 21:34, Mark Michelson wrote:
>>
>> Hello
Hi Mark,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
> On 16 Jan 2023, at 21:34, Mark Michelson wrote:
>
> Hello Abhiram,
>
> I haven't taken a close look at every line of the series, but I have two
> high-level questions/observations.
>
> First, what is the benefit of using this compared to ACL
Hello Abhiram,
I haven't taken a close look at every line of the series, but I have two
high-level questions/observations.
First, what is the benefit of using this compared to ACL logging or drop
sampling?
Second, I think that if we are to accept this patch, the behavior needs
to be
References: <20230113124423.242017-1-sangana.abhi...@nutanix.com>
Bleep bloop. Greetings Abhiram Sangana, I am a robot and I have tried out your
patch.
Thanks for your contribution.
I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
checkpatch:
WARNING: Line is 82
This patch commits connections dropped/rejected by ACLs with label
(introduced in 0e0228be (northd: Add ACL label)) to the connection
tracking table. The dropped connections are committed in a separate
conntrack zone so that they can be managed independently and do not
interact with the connection
