more ctnetlink updates
Pablo Neira
maintainercover more ctnetlink updates
Hi Harald!
Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.
BTW, these patches apply on top of latest Yasuyuki's.
Signature · 2 lines
The dawn of the fourth age of Linux firewalling is coming; a time of great struggle and heroic deeds -- J.Kadlecsik got inspired by J.Morris
Quoted 4 lines · Pablo Neira
Hi Harald!
Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.
ok, from a first quick read, they seem fine to me. I'll try to review, apply and submit later today/tomorrow.
Signature · 5 lines
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://netfilter.org/ ============================================================================ "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Quoted 4 lines · Pablo Neira
Hi Harald!
Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.
applied 2-5 and 7 unmodified, backed out '6' and applied a modified version of '1' (see separate mails)
Signature · 5 lines
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://netfilter.org/ ============================================================================ "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Quoted 10 lines · Harald Welte
Quoted 4 lines · Pablo Neira
Hi Harald!
Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.
applied 2-5 and 7 unmodified, backed out '6' and applied a modified version of '1' (see separate mails)
What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.
Quoted 6 lines · Patrick McHardy
Quoted 2 lines · Harald Welte
applied 2-5 and 7 unmodified, backed out '6' and applied a modified version of '1' (see separate mails)
What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.
the usual overlap. When I read netfilter-devel, I don't look into my inbox at the same time, so I only read your mails afterwards.
Signature · 5 lines
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://netfilter.org/ ============================================================================ "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Pablo Neira
maintainerQuoted 9 lines · Patrick McHardy
Quoted 6 lines · Harald Welte
Quoted 2 lines · Pablo Neira
Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.
applied 2-5 and 7 unmodified, backed out '6' and applied a modified version of '1' (see separate mails)
What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.
I don't agree. In the case of patch 3, it's true that sizechecks are missing in some parts of the code and I'm going to fix it, but that is a different patch that is not related itself with the marking support.
Signature · 2 lines
The dawn of the fourth age of Linux firewalling is coming; a time of great struggle and heroic deeds -- J.Kadlecsik got inspired by J.Morris
Quoted 7 lines · Pablo Neira
Quoted 2 lines · Patrick McHardy
What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.
I don't agree. In the case of patch 3, it's true that sizechecks are missing in some parts of the code and I'm going to fix it, but that is a different patch that is not related itself with the marking support.
The mark parts are related to the mark patch, aren't they? Since other places have the same problem, a follow up patch is fine, but I generally don't like patches that require immediate fixing afterwards.