From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [NETFILTER]: Kill ebt_ulog Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:52:40 +0200 Message-ID: <42E267C8.9090005@trash.net> References: <42E1ADB2.1080109@trash.net> <1122119412.4484.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist Return-path: To: Bart De Schuymer In-Reply-To: <1122119412.4484.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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 Bart De Schuymer wrote: > Op za, 23-07-2005 te 04:38 +0200, schreef Patrick McHardy: > >>plain text document bijlage (x) >>[NETFILTER]: Kill ebt_ulog >> >>It uses NETLINK_NFLOG, which is also used by ipt_ULOG, so it causes >>conflicts in netlink_kernel_create. As no userspace daemon exists, >>and a generic replacement by Harald will follow in the next couple >>of days, kill it. > > Killing ebt_ulog is not the right thing, it is an ebtables module that > is used by people (which is why I made it). The right thing would be to > make ebt_ulog use Harald's upcoming generic code, which is hopefully not > restricted to iptables. The upcoming code will be a generic replacement, so there's no need to have ipt_ULOG/ebt_ulog except for backwards compatiblity reasons. Is there actually a userspace daemon for ebt_ulog? In any case it makes little sense to allocate a new netlink number for ebt_ulog since it will break userspace compatiblity anyway. Regards Patrick