Re: [patch] ipt_recent

[Amin Azez <azez@ufomechanic.net>]

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Amin Azez wrote:
> 
>>This patch fixes the previously mentioned bug in ipt_recent and adds:
>>
>>--lt n  # check less than n items in list
>>--gt n  # checks more than n items in list
>>--eq n  # check exactly n items in list
>>
>>Which can be prefixed with ! to invert.
>>
>>--- include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_recent.h.nolimit	2006-02-20 10:12:06.000000000 +0000
>>+++ include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_recent.h	2006-02-20 11:30:58.000000000 +0000
>>@@ -10,6 +10,11 @@
>> #define IPT_RECENT_REMOVE 8
>> #define IPT_RECENT_TTL   16
>> 
>>+#define IPT_RECENT_INVERT 1
>>+#define IPT_RECENT_LT	  2
>>+#define IPT_RECENT_GT	  4
>>+#define IPT_RECENT_EQ	  (IPT_RECENT_LT | IPT_RECENT_GT)
>>+
>> #define IPT_RECENT_SOURCE 0
>> #define IPT_RECENT_DEST   1
>> 
>>@@ -20,6 +25,8 @@
>> 	u_int32_t   hit_count;
>> 	u_int8_t    check_set;
>> 	u_int8_t    invert;
>>+	u_int8_t    check_count;
>>+	u_int32_t   entry_count;
>> 	char        name[IPT_RECENT_NAME_LEN];
>> 	u_int8_t    side;
>> };
> 
> 
> Sorry, we can't do that since it breaks userspace compatibility. But I'm
> really glad someone finally has the stomach to touch ipt_recent, I'll
> review your other patches now.

I've reworked that functionality significantly in a new patch to send 
next week. I will see if I can find a way to make use of existing 
structures to add the functionality.

I heard tell that ipt_recent needed a maintainer?

Sam