[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A27B9EC.2010301@trash.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:11:24 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Netfilter Development Mailinglist
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Subject: Re: [resend] Passive OS fingerprint xtables match.
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:53:05PM +0200, Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
>>> That's hard - there is no hook number in the match function, so we do
>>> not really know if it is forward, input or prerouting.
>> This is really needed, spamming the ring buffer is not a good option.
>>
>> I'd say just add the hook number to xt_match_param. Its a bit
>> inconsistent anyways that we're handing it to checkentry for
>> validation, but not to the match function.
>
> Doesn't checkentry receive a mask of all possible hooks? There is still
> no per-packet hook number. Although we can always use INPUT hook since
> its the most widely used one. And drop a comment about this abuse.
Thats not what I meant. struct xt_match_param is passed to the
->match() callbacks from *t_do_table(). This is where you can
add the real hook number to have it available in ->match().
(Forgot to mention earlier: please in a seperate patch and adjusting
all *tables copies)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists