From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B91E1382C5 for ; Sun, 17 May 2020 14:11:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2483FE08F9; Sun, 17 May 2020 14:11:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9F2CE08AB for ; Sun, 17 May 2020 14:11:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=peak.localnet) by smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jaK0U-0002pu-43 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 14:11:10 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Kernel config for Docker Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 15:11:09 +0100 Message-ID: <11550529.O9o76ZdvQC@peak> In-Reply-To: <0bafeb1f-32f7-f5e1-96f3-8df849eacdf0@gmail.com> References: <5357792.DvuYhMxLoT@peak> <4243942.LvFx2qVVIh@peak> <0bafeb1f-32f7-f5e1-96f3-8df849eacdf0@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost01c-IP: [82.69.80.10] Feedback-ID: 82.69.80.10 X-Archives-Salt: 25672b6c-c7a0-476c-8c77-cffc469068de X-Archives-Hash: 5891f1eab1ba65ec5fec4c3fb05b221a On Sunday, 17 May 2020 12:26:02 BST Victor Ivanov wrote: > Andrew makes a good point that, of course, not all options will be > relevant to a particular image or use case. The script is aimed to check > for "full" compatibility. Having some reported as missing is by no means > a deal breaker. > > Re nftables it's a very valid point as well. I too use nftables instead > of iptables and, in general, anything that dares touch my rules I will > either disable the option for it to do so or, if that's not possible, > swiftly eradicate it off my system with vengeance. I'm not a big fan of > how Docker manages netfilter rules so I too tend to disable that from > the config and, as Andrew said, it has been slow at adopting nftables. > It seems Docker is being developed with primary consideration for stable > (read archaic) distributions that have long release cycles. Ah. I scent Debian. > If you use nftables at all - even via other software such as firewalld, > etc - Docker may or may not like that. Previously, though admitedly > quite a while ago, Docker just loved adding iptables rules in addition > to my nftables rules. Needless to say, that quickly became a mess. I've been using shorewall for many years. > nftables is _a lot_ easier to manage, even writing rules manually feels > a lot more intuitive. So I think the learning curve (at least in terms > of syntax) tends to be less steep IMO if you decide to go down that road > at some point. > > Anyway, this probably wasn't a post of high contribution value haha All grist to the mill - thanks. -- Regards, Peter.