[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0909021748310.25091@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:49:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
cc: Hannes Eder <heder@...gle.com>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Fabien DuchĂȘne <mad_fab@...net.be>,
Jean-Luc Fortemaison <jl.fortemaison@...ouvain.be>,
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
Julius Volz <julius.volz@...il.com>,
Laurent Grawet <laurent.grawet@...ouvain.be>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS)
On Wednesday 2009-09-02 17:36, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>> Nice, I'll use par->family.
>>
>> So in theory I do not even need a check like the following in the beginning?
>>
>> if (family != NFPROTO_IPV4
>> #ifdef CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6
>> && family != NFPROTO_IPV6
>> #endif
>> ) {
>> match = false;
>> goto out;
>> }
>
>With the AF_UNSPEC registration of your match, it might be used
par->family always contains the NFPROTO of the invoking implementation,
which can never be UNSPEC (except, in future, xtables2 ;-)
par->match->family however may be UNSPEC if the module works that way.
Which is why we have par->family.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists