From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] CTA_PROTO_NUM is u_int8_t not u_int16_t (was Re: CTA_PROTO_NUM u_int8_t or u_int16_t) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:25:53 +0100 Message-ID: <438710E1.2000202@trash.net> References: <43836BAF.2050501@eurodev.net> <20051122220606.GC31478@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <4383C2C9.8050109@eurodev.net> <43843ACE.4050808@trash.net> <20051124200736.GW31478@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20051124202125.GX31478@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <43864DC7.6060109@trash.net> <20051125084427.GL31478@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira , Netfilter Development Mailinglist Return-path: To: Harald Welte In-Reply-To: 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 Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Harald Welte wrote: > >> yes. old libnetfilter_conntrack is broken, because it makes wrong size >> assumptions. But if we'd start introdcucing the "new scheme" I >> proposed, we can guarantee not to run into any of these. > > Only if new libnetfilter_conntrack will send different messages to > differnet kernels (u_int16_t for 2.6.14 and u_int8_t for 2.6.15+). I also thinks its a large overkill to introduce this scheme just to handle brokeness, lets just try not to make this kind of mistake again. Also it doesn't handle the byteorder-problem of this particular case, so I don't think we should go this way. My favourite solutions: - Pablo's suggestion - your first patch, but keep dumping the old CTA_PROTO_NUM