[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A9EB0AE.4080904@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:51:42 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
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)
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 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 ;-)
I didn't say it will be UNSPEC, I said it might be something
different than IPV4/IPV6 unless that is checked *somewhere*.
--
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
 
