![]() |
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] |