lvs-devel
|
To: | Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
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: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:51:42 +0200 |
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 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), Hannes Eder |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/3] IPVS: make friends with nf_conntrack, Hannes Eder |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS), Hannes Eder |
Next by Thread: | [PATCH 2/3] IPVS: make friends with nf_conntrack, Hannes Eder |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |