Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xtables: inclusion of xt_condition

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2010-04-22 13:14, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>>> +static struct xt_match condition_mt_reg __read_mostly = {
>>> +	.name       = "condition",
>>> +	.revision   = 1,
>> Why are we starting with revision 1?
> 
> So as to avoid collisions with previously-deployed extensions.
> 
> Debian once decided to patch their etch 2.6.18 kernel with
> ipt_connlimit ("connlimit.0"). That subsequently backfired with the
> etchnhalf upgrade where xt_connlimit (also known as "connlimit.0")
> was introduced.
> 
> condition.0 was used by pom-ng.
> 
> For the same reason, xt_TEE-2.6.35 starts with TEE.1, because TEE.0
> is already in use by the variant without oif in struct xt_tee_tginfo;
> i.e. all the Xtables-addons installations to date, basically.
> 
> It is not a particularl hardship to pick a revision number that is
> distinct from all revision numbers previously seen in the wild, so
> I'm set to go this way.

Fair enough, I guess we don't have to fear running out of revisions :)
Thanks for the explanation.