lvs-devel
|
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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS), Patrick McHardy |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS), Hannes Eder |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS), Patrick McHardy |
Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS), Hannes Eder |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |