From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Gerd v. Egidy" Subject: Re: condition for 2.6.16 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:48:14 +0200 Message-ID: <200604210248.14819.lists@egidy.de> References: <200604201919.19246.max@nucleus.it> <44480F94.4010502@trash.net> <200604210126.11294.max@nucleus.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org In-Reply-To: <200604210126.11294.max@nucleus.it> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Friday 21 April 2006 01:26, Massimiliano Hofer wrote: > On Friday 21 April 2006 12:47 am, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > It was discussed at the netfilter workshops, summaries are available at > > workshop.netfilter.org. > > I did a cursory check of the site, but I only found a 5 or 6 lines summary > for every conference. Google doesn't help either. > May you direct me to a more comprehensive report, please? There is no big discussion about condition online but one line at http://workshop.netfilter.org/2004/ : 6.2. Decisions about individual patches ... condition Stays in POM, because it's ugly and ruleset updates are faster these days I don't know more than that because I didn't attend that netfilter workshop. I already had a discussion about the future of condition with Harald back in 2004 and he basically said the same as Patrick now: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.firewalls.netfilter.devel/5694 I think something like condition is needed as temporary solution until the proposed fast and reliable way to change rules is available. I very much appreciate your work on porting it to 2.6, I already had planned doing that in the nex two or three month. Kind regards, Gerd