From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xtables: inclusion of xt_condition Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:29:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4BD03333.3080705@trash.net> References: <1271856792-20872-1-git-send-email-jengelh@medozas.de> <1271856792-20872-2-git-send-email-jengelh@medozas.de> <4BCF001D.4090304@trash.net> <4BD02FAA.7000207@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:63646 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753407Ab0DVLaA (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:30:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2010-04-22 13:14, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>> +static struct xt_match condition_mt_reg __read_mostly = { >>> + .name = "condition", >>> + .revision = 1, >> Why are we starting with revision 1? > > So as to avoid collisions with previously-deployed extensions. > > Debian once decided to patch their etch 2.6.18 kernel with > ipt_connlimit ("connlimit.0"). That subsequently backfired with the > etchnhalf upgrade where xt_connlimit (also known as "connlimit.0") > was introduced. > > condition.0 was used by pom-ng. > > For the same reason, xt_TEE-2.6.35 starts with TEE.1, because TEE.0 > is already in use by the variant without oif in struct xt_tee_tginfo; > i.e. all the Xtables-addons installations to date, basically. > > It is not a particularl hardship to pick a revision number that is > distinct from all revision numbers previously seen in the wild, so > I'm set to go this way. Fair enough, I guess we don't have to fear running out of revisions :) Thanks for the explanation.