From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [resend] Passive OS fingerprint xtables match. Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:07:19 +0400 Message-ID: <20090604120719.GA14981@ioremap.net> References: <20090511095343.GA30778@ioremap.net> <4A1D6A20.8050404@trash.net> <20090604113723.GA13018@ioremap.net> <4A27B5A1.9050300@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , "Paul E. McKenney" , Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Jan Engelhardt To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A27B5A1.9050300@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:53:05PM +0200, Patrick McHardy (kaber@trash.net) wrote: > >That's hard - there is no hook number in the match function, so we do > >not really know if it is forward, input or prerouting. > > This is really needed, spamming the ring buffer is not a good option. > > I'd say just add the hook number to xt_match_param. Its a bit > inconsistent anyways that we're handing it to checkentry for > validation, but not to the match function. Doesn't checkentry receive a mask of all possible hooks? There is still no per-packet hook number. Although we can always use INPUT hook since its the most widely used one. And drop a comment about this abuse. -- Evgeniy Polyakov