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 19:56:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20130123185620.GA6251@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> <20130123162125.GA27000@1984> 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]:60022 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752082Ab3AWS4Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:56:24 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:38:20AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > 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. > > Okay. I'll prepare a separate patch with the pcap-based utility, then. > > Since utils is built as part of the root make invocation, I think it's > better to test for pcap.h in the root configure.ac and add a test in > utils/Makefile.am to build this tool if found, as opposed to creating > a separate configure.ac under utils. We can also discuss these > details after the first version of the patch, of course. That's fine by now, and it's way less bloat.