Re: [PATCH 2/9] netfilter: xtables: slightly more detailed checkentry return values

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> When extended status codes are available, such as ENOMEM on failed
> allocations, or subsequent functions (e.g. nf_ct_get_l3proto), passing
> them up to userspace seems like a good idea compared to just always
> EINVAL.

> diff --git a/net/bridge/netfilter/ebt_802_3.c b/net/bridge/netfilter/ebt_802_3.c
> index 5d11767..7b6f4c4 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/netfilter/ebt_802_3.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/netfilter/ebt_802_3.c
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ ebt_802_3_mt(const struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_match_param *par)
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> -static bool ebt_802_3_mt_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par)
> +static int ebt_802_3_mt_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par)
>  {
>  	const struct ebt_802_3_info *info = par->matchinfo;

Sigh, so we're basically going back to the old signatures. I guess
this makes sense, however iptables has special interpretations of
errno values. How will this interact?