Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS)

To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS)
Cc: Hannes Eder <heder@xxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Fabien Duchêne <mad_fab@xxxxxxxxx>, Jean-Luc Fortemaison <jl.fortemaison@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>, Julius Volz <julius.volz@xxxxxxxxx>, Laurent Grawet <laurent.grawet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:49:40 +0200 (CEST)
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 lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>