From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valentijn Sessink Subject: Re: xt_recent.c bug - and cleanup Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:55:17 +0200 Message-ID: <52289B55.1000902@blub.net> References: <521F1F77.3030808@blub.net> <20130829220904.GA6810@linuxace.com> <52202D25.6030606@blub.net> <20130830152448.GB7648@linuxace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Phil Oester Return-path: Received: from gateway.openoffice.nl ([95.97.76.242]:32794 "EHLO openoffice.kantoor.openoffice.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752529Ab3IEOzU (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 10:55:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130830152448.GB7648@linuxace.com> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Phil, On 30-08-13 17:24, Phil Oester wrote: > Eh? You might be misreading the code. I was. I stand corrected. [...] > You can certainly use inversion with this match, but in your original example, > you are expecting that anything which does not match will get it's timestamp > updated. That is simply not how the match works. I contacted Stephen Frost to ask his opinion about the "!" qualifier and he agrees with the current source, i.e. only update if the match returns true. Thank you for your thorough reading and sorry for the misunderstanding. I have closed the bug. Best regards, Valentijn Sessink