From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [RFC] back on nf_tables (plus compatibility layer) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:42:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20121031154216.GB9558@1984> References: <20121025170632.GA4890@1984> <20121026110419.GA16629@1984> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Netfilter Development Mailing list , Linux Networking Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:49355 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932704Ab2JaPmX (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:42:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Friday 2012-10-26 13:04, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > >> > >> Meanwhile, I am on xtables2 that actually reproduces the set of > >> _really important_ features that currently are in the setsockopt > >> iptables, like atomic table replace and atomic dump. > >> > >> I have updated to the newest tree, and the first set is > >> available in the git repository at: > >> git://git.inai.de/linux xt2-20121025 > > > >If you think this feature is important, checkout nf_tables and think > >how to integrate this prototype code that provides atomic table > >replacement to it. > > I'd rather tinker with xt2. You're are free spend your time on your pet project, but I warn you: it will *extremely hard* to justify its inclusion into mainline. As said, I don't think it makes sense to add two firewall engines/interfaces for the same thing. And the compatibility layer provides an utility with similar syntax and semantics to iptables.