From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willem de Bruijn Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc] netfilter: two xtables matches Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:12:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1354735339-13402-1-git-send-email-willemb@google.com> <20121206052246.GA2905@1984> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Jan Engelhardt , netfilter-devel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , David Miller , Patrick McHardy To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:59578 "EHLO mail-ie0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755522Ab2LFVMl (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:12:41 -0500 Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so11998547ieb.31 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:12:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121206052246.GA2905@1984> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:00:36PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Wednesday 2012-12-05 20:28, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> >> >Somehow, the first part of this email went missing. Not critical, >> >but for completeness: >> > >> >These two patches each add an xtables match. >> > >> >The xt_priority match is a straighforward addition in the style of >> >xt_mark, adding the option to filter on one more sk_buff field. I >> >have an immediate application for this. The amount of code (in >> >kernel + userspace) to add a single check proved quite large. >> >> Hm so yeah, can't we just place this in xt_mark.c? > > I don't feel this belongs to xt_mark at all. Do you have other concerns, or can I resubmit as is for merging in a few days if no one raises additional issues? For this and netfilter changes in general: should these patches be against git://1984.lsi.us.es/nf-next instead of net-next? This patch likely applies cleanly there, but I haven't tried yet. Thanks.