From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Massimiliano Hofer Subject: Re: new ABI Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:58:57 +0200 Message-ID: <200608241258.58098.max@nucleus.it> References: <200608142312.41851.max@nucleus.it> <44EBE13E.9020605@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Patrick McHardy , Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org In-Reply-To: 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 Thursday 24 August 2006 10:50 am, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > + Match/target versioning support, i.e. be able to specify > =A0 version-dependent features. That might require OR operation > =A0 support at some level in one rule: > > # Handle two versions of the same module: > -m foo --foo-version 2 --OR --foo-version 1 > # Handle new or possibly missing module > -m bar --bar-version 1 --OR --false|true|fatal-error|ignore-rule > > Interesting question is how to handle such rules in the kernel, taking > into account that we want the 'SAVE' operation to work correctly. This could be a userspace problem. The kernel could disclose what matches a= re=20 registered (given that the corresponding module is loaded) and what version= s=20 are supported. Choosing different paths based on some fixed parameter like the current=20 version isn't something we should do for every packet in transit. =2D-=20 Saluti, Massimiliano Hofer Nucleus