Re: [PATCH 4/4] netfilter: xtables: schedule xt_state for removal

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2010-03-24 16:02, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> xt_conntrack has been provided since v2.5.32.
>>>   
>> I'm fine with the removal of old revisions, but how are you planning on
>> informing users about removal of this module? Most people don't read
>> feature-removal-schedule, and distributions are unable to help with
>> user written scripts.
> 
> I would suggest to do the same as we did with disallowing DROP in the 
> nat table:
> 
>  - a message printed by iptables whenever -m state is used
> 
>  - a kernel message whenever whenever a rule with xt_state is created
> 
> We did not actually do the kernel side with nat-prohibit-DROP, but I
> regard it as very useful, as the community was very much able to help
> itself if only they got the word - and it turned out that dmesg is
> _the_ place people look in especially when they don't supervise
> iptables output directly, as with, for example, boot splash where
> messages are hidden, or server/router devices that one tends to
> forget about.

Yes, a kernel message sounds fine and less annoying than an
iptables message since we can limit it to print only once.

I'm not really convinced of removing state though, I has never
caused any maintenance overhead, it requires a lot less memory
than xt_conntrack and it seems more intuitive to write "-m state"
than "-m conntrack --ctstate" to me.