[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSf+fh21koZRJ_ZDsr8yiiwcw2-pJ4uTyS2pOHZGdBM1-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:12:10 -0500
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>,
netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc] netfilter: two xtables matches
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:00:36PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Wednesday 2012-12-05 20:28, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>> >Somehow, the first part of this email went missing. Not critical,
>> >but for completeness:
>> >
>> >These two patches each add an xtables match.
>> >
>> >The xt_priority match is a straighforward addition in the style of
>> >xt_mark, adding the option to filter on one more sk_buff field. I
>> >have an immediate application for this. The amount of code (in
>> >kernel + userspace) to add a single check proved quite large.
>>
>> Hm so yeah, can't we just place this in xt_mark.c?
>
> I don't feel this belongs to xt_mark at all.
Do you have other concerns, or can I resubmit as is for merging in a
few days if no one raises additional issues?
For this and netfilter changes in general: should these patches be
against git://1984.lsi.us.es/nf-next instead of net-next? This patch
likely applies cleanly there, but I haven't tried yet. Thanks.
--
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