From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: NFQUEUE verdicts - adding non-termination Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:50:52 +0100 Message-ID: <4CDBCA8C.2000801@trash.net> References: <897598.58283.qm@web111015.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Watts Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:35959 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751689Ab0KKKuv (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 05:50:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <897598.58283.qm@web111015.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11.11.2010 10:01, Andrew Watts wrote: > Hi. > > The NF_CONTINUE verdict that Darryl Miles brings up in his 11/4 post is very interesting. > > NF_CONTINUE would provide the NFQUEUE target the added flexibility of, say, partial handling in userspace. A queue-handler could have a set of criteria that, when satisfied, would result in an immediate drop or accept. One could then leave the rest of the packets to find their fate in the chains/rules left to traverse. > > I would be interested in helping to add this verdict if someone will take the lead (assuming a patch hasn't already been written - has it?). There's no difference between returning NF_ACCEPT or a new NF_CONTINUE. Queueing happens outside of the ruleset context, so in either case the packet would continue through the network stack directly, not after the NFQUEUE rule.