From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Paasch Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: Allow dropping packet after call to l4proto->packet Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:49:03 +0100 Message-ID: <200903121649.07014.christoph.paasch@gmail.com> References: <200903121603.02733.christoph.paasch@gmail.com> <1236870826-10054-1-git-send-email-christoph.paasch@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart13603152.0ynvLJkX3S"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f177.google.com ([209.85.219.177]:41378 "EHLO mail-ew0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753891AbZCLPtL (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:49:11 -0400 Received: by ewy25 with SMTP id 25so404111ewy.37 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:49:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --nextPart13603152.0ynvLJkX3S Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thu March 12 2009 wrote Jan Engelhardt: > On Thursday 2009-03-12 16:13, Christoph Paasch wrote: > >As NF_DROP =3D 0, no packets would ever have been dropped. > > Mh would not it be safer to actually give NF_DROP a real value so that > -NF_DROP also makes sense? Yes, why not... > (Might need checking places where NF_DROP is used.) NF_DROP is used only in tcp_packet (as far as I can see, no other l4 proto= =20 uses it in *_packet) =2D- Christoph Paasch www.rollerbulls.be =2D- --nextPart13603152.0ynvLJkX3S Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkm5Lu8ACgkQLHtZTroOLZumcwCgntJu3iYT4Igx0MfLQc88aEeG 8/AAmwV1SRk2RpD1/dDSaOlB1m85Afxe =c0TZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart13603152.0ynvLJkX3S--