From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] nftables: reject NFT_SET_ELEM_INTERVAL_END flag for non-interval sets Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:00:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20150130180021.GA12318@salvia> References: <1422603994-5836-1-git-send-email-kaber@trash.net> <1422603994-5836-3-git-send-email-kaber@trash.net> <20150130173107.GA9243@salvia> <20150130175525.GA8670@acer.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, tgraf@suug.ch, davem@davemloft.net, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, ying.xue@windriver.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150130175525.GA8670@acer.localdomain> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 05:55:26PM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > On 30.01, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > > > Unless you have any concern, I'm going to apply this and 8/9 to > > nf-next, so you don't need to resend these two sanitization fixes. > > This one is not needed for mainline so far since nft_hash validates > on its own. It is only required since my series centralizes that > validation once the set extensions are added. > > For 8/9, sure. OK, I'll take 8/9 then, thanks!