[PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[Pablo Neira]

Hi Harald!

Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so
these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.

BTW, these patches apply on top of latest Yasuyuki's.

-- 
The dawn of the fourth age of Linux firewalling is coming; a time of
great struggle and heroic deeds -- J.Kadlecsik got inspired by J.Morris

Re: [PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 712 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:00:06PM +0100, Pablo Neira wrote:
> Hi Harald!
> 
> Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so
> these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.

ok, from a first quick read, they seem fine to me.  I'll try to review,
apply and submit later today/tomorrow.

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>                 http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 705 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:00:06PM +0100, Pablo Neira wrote:
> Hi Harald!
> 
> Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so
> these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.

applied 2-5 and 7 unmodified, backed out '6' and applied a modified
version of '1' (see separate mails)

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>                 http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[Patrick McHardy]

Harald Welte wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:00:06PM +0100, Pablo Neira wrote:
> 
>>Hi Harald!
>>
>>Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so
>>these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.
> 
> 
> applied 2-5 and 7 unmodified, backed out '6' and applied a modified
> version of '1' (see separate mails)

What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:37:33PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Harald Welte wrote:
>
> > applied 2-5 and 7 unmodified, backed out '6' and applied a modified
> > version of '1' (see separate mails)
> 
> What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.

the usual overlap.  When I read netfilter-devel, I don't look into my
inbox at the same time, so I only read your mails afterwards.

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>                 http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[Pablo Neira]

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Harald Welte wrote:
>>On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:00:06PM +0100, Pablo Neira wrote:
>>>Here follows more ctnetlink updates. There are no critical bug here so
>>>these should go in 2.6.15, just some minor fixes and new features.
>>
>>applied 2-5 and 7 unmodified, backed out '6' and applied a modified
>>version of '1' (see separate mails)
> 
> What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.

I don't agree. In the case of patch 3, it's true that sizechecks are
missing in some parts of the code and I'm going to fix it, but that is a
different patch that is not related itself with the marking support.

-- 
The dawn of the fourth age of Linux firewalling is coming; a time of
great struggle and heroic deeds -- J.Kadlecsik got inspired by J.Morris

Re: [PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[Patrick McHardy]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Pablo Neira wrote:

> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>> What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.
>
> I don't agree. In the case of patch 3, it's true that sizechecks are
> missing in some parts of the code and I'm going to fix it, but that is a
> different patch that is not related itself with the marking support.

The mark parts are related to the mark patch, aren't they?
Since other places have the same problem, a follow up patch
is fine, but I generally don't like patches that require
immediate fixing afterwards.