From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] netfilter: Pass socket pointer down through okfn(). Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:35:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20150407153533.GA3979@salvia> References: <20150405.221904.606225054570296194.davem@davemloft.net> <1428417869.2928.1.camel@stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, jiri@resnulli.us To: Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:44019 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755619AbbDGPba (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:31:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1428417869.2928.1.camel@stressinduktion.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:44:29PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On So, 2015-04-05 at 22:19 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > --- a/include/linux/netfilter.h > > +++ b/include/linux/netfilter.h > > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ struct nf_hook_state { > > struct net_device *in; > > struct net_device *out; > > struct sock *sk; > > - int (*okfn)(struct sk_buff *); > > + int (*okfn)(struct sock *, struct sk_buff *); > > }; > > If we give okfn the signature int (*okfn)(struct nf_hook_state *); then > we would not need to touch anything else to enhance this. > > What do you think? I guess you mean something like: int (*okfn)(struct sk_buff *, struct nf_hook_state *); I agree that would save us from more changes on the okfn() signature. I think it's OK if that change is introduced once we have some client code that needs it, I mean in a follow up patch.