From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: iptables 1.3.6 not using /etc/networks Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:10:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4565ABD6.5070909@trash.net> References: <20061112173312.GA2593@linuxace.com> <4560F02C.4040905@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Phil Oester , "Laurence J. Lane" , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Pablo Neira Ayuso In-Reply-To: <4560F02C.4040905@netfilter.org> 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 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Laurence J. Lane wrote: > >>On 11/12/06, Phil Oester wrote: >> >> >>>Not sure offhand how we can satisfy both cases here, but I'd posit >>>that more people use x.x.x/24 than use foonet/x notation. >> >>I have another bug report saying it breaks stuff from /etc/hosts too. >> >>How about something like this? I assume valid IP characters are in the >>range of 0-9 and a dot. This will skip pad_cidr() if any characters >>outside of that range are encountered. Plain bad IP addresses are >>apparently validated elsewhere. Of course, I could be wrong about all >>of this. > > > Apparently /etc/host accepts entries composed of dots, e.g. > > foo.machine 192.168.100.100 > > So this assumption can be OK as soon as nobody is using such notation. I haven't followed this fully, but seen a lot of patches floating around. Is there already some consensus on which patch to use?