From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [ULOGD PATCH] rework, fill MAC address in ULOG for ethernet. Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:08:50 +0200 Message-ID: <48776972.8080305@trash.net> References: <486B88F4.7060704@trash.net> <1215554219-13763-1-git-send-email-eric@inl.fr> <487497F4.8070004@netfilter.org> <48749899.7070505@trash.net> <48749AF1.60900@netfilter.org> <48749CAA.3030306@trash.net> <20080709210454.GA4461@ghlodit.inl.fr> <48752B26.3010404@trash.net> <20080710203931.GB4000@bayen.regit.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Eric Leblond , Patrick McHardy , Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:60184 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751310AbYGKOJG (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:09:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080710203931.GB4000@bayen.regit.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric Leblond wrote: > Hello, > > On Wednesday, 2008 July 9 at 23:18:30 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> Eric Leblond wrote: >>> I think the proposed patch is a best effort work. It should be enough >>> for most users as ethernet headers are the more common. But I agree, we >>> can't have a full working solution with ULOG. >>> >>> I will try to find some time to rework my NFLOG patch to see if it is >>> possible to cleanly send the source and destination hardware address to >>> userspace via NFLOG. > > I don't see any other mean but to get hardware address from device and > not from skb. I really don't like it, as this can be done from userspace > directly. I will thus stop working on adding destination address to > NFLOG messages. > >>> IMHO, this patch is not harmfull and will help some people. It may worth >>> to be push in the git tree. >>> + ulogd_log(ULOGD_DEBUG, "Unknown mac_len (%d), " >>> + "rejecting packet", pkt->mac_len); >> This comment made me believe that it would break header >> printing for non-ethernet packets. If that is not true, >> I have no objections. > > Hmm, you're right but user using non-ethernet packets can upgrade to > NFLOG ;) I assume thats not meant seriously :) But we should integrate new features into the new things, not break old things and expect users to upgrade :)