From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH next v3] iptables: add xt_bpf match Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:21:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20130123162125.GA27000@1984> References: <1357776502-21555-1-git-send-email-willemb@google.com> <1357776944-28805-1-git-send-email-willemb@google.com> <20130117235328.GA16224@1984> <20130121134434.GA12865@1984> <20130122084657.GE8541@breakpoint.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel , Jozsef Kadlecsik To: Willem de Bruijn Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:33368 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755891Ab3AWQVd (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:21:33 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:59:28AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > >> b) provide a separate utility to generate the BPF filter in text-based > >> format from some utility that accepts tcpdump-like syntax. The utility > >> can be distributed in the utils directory and it would not be > >> mandatory to compile it if libpcap is not present. [...] > > I would go with b) for now; we can always move to a) later on, but not > > the other way around (would kill backwards compatibility). > > This sounds like the consensus (for the record, I also prefer this less > disruptive approach). In that case, I can submit a revised libxt_bpf with your > suggested changes right away, Pablo, and we can leave the separate > userspace tool for a later commit. Either way is fine, but please we should have that utility compiler integrated in the iptables tree by when 3.9-rc1 is released.