Re: iptables u32 match patch-o-matic (attempt)

[Laszlo Valko <valko@linux.karinthy.hu>]

Hi Don!

May I ask you to change those u_int8_t's to u_int32_t in 
struct ipt_u32_location_element, struct ipt_u32_value_element,
struct ipt_u32_test, struct ipt_u32?

There's really no point in making those integers 1 byte long when every
second field is (a multiple of) 4 byte long and thus will eventually get
padded during compilation. It just complicates matters.

Thanks,
Laszlo

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:18:36PM -0800, Don Cohen wrote:
> +struct ipt_u32_location_element
> +{
> +	u_int32_t number;
> +	u_int8_t nextop;
> +};
> +struct ipt_u32_value_element
> +{
> +	u_int32_t min;
> +	u_int32_t max;
> +};
> +/* *** any way to allow for an arbitrary number of elements?
> +   for now I settle for a limit of 10 of each */
> +#define U32MAXSIZE 10
> +struct ipt_u32_test
> +{
> +	u_int8_t nnums;
> +	struct ipt_u32_location_element location[U32MAXSIZE+1];
> +	u_int8_t nvalues;
> +	struct ipt_u32_value_element value[U32MAXSIZE+1];
> +};
> +
> +struct ipt_u32
> +{
> +	u_int8_t ntests;
> +	struct ipt_u32_test tests[U32MAXSIZE+1];
> +};