From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Holler Subject: Re: nft parser and names for constants (was [PATCH v2] parser: add kludges for "param-problem" and "redirect") Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:38:49 +0200 Message-ID: <552761E9.7000701@ahsoftware.de> References: <20150405121104.GD23433@acer.localdomain> <552187FB.60904@ahsoftware.de> <20150406015128.GA20515@acer.localdomain> <55224776.4040108@ahsoftware.de> <55224B70.1070309@ahsoftware.de> <55224E82.3010206@ahsoftware.de> <20150406112543.GB24191@acer.localdomain> <552659D6.8090902@ahsoftware.de> <20150409110745.GI12203@acer.localdomain> <5526BBD4.2000107@ahsoftware.de> <20150409191530.GA7548@acer.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez , Eric Leblond To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from h1446028.stratoserver.net ([85.214.92.142]:35497 "EHLO mail.ahsoftware.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751536AbbDJFi6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2015 01:38:58 -0400 Received: from wandq.ahsoftware (p4FC375A2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.195.117.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ahsoftware.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 576B82C9C1C0 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:38:56 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20150409191530.GA7548@acer.localdomain> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 09.04.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Patrick McHardy: > On 09.04, Alexander Holler wrote: >> Am 09.04.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Patrick McHardy: >>>> 3. I don't see why admins have to use another set of names for constants >>>> than developers. Inventing a new set of names for a list of constants for >>>> which there already exist a very widely used set of names just leads to more >>>> confusion. And if it's ok to invent new names, why does nft use >>>> "param-problem" and not "parameter-problem"? Of course, I would suggest to >>>> use the existing name icmp_parameterprob (like it's used in every >>>> c/c++-source). >>> >>> In case of ICMP we use the same names that iptables used, so this actually >>> spares admins from getting used to new constants. We're not going to use >>> source code identifiers, there's no benefit at all, especially if you >>> consider that Linux headers use different identifiers than the BSD headers. >> >> nft isn't in use on BSD and if you think taking BSD out of a corner makes >> sense, I wonder how compatible the names, nft uses, are, with what is used >> by ipf or one of the other BSD firewall packages. As the answer is the names >> are incompatible, arguing with BSD is nonsense here. > > This is starting to annoy me. If you suggest to use names from headers, at > least do your homework. The BSD headers is what most of userspace uses, and > this is where ICMP_PARAMPROB originates. Linux uses ICMP_PARAMETERPROB. I aggree that this discussion, which never really has begun, finally ended in the mud. Feel free to throw out more accusations as I won't try to discuss with you anymore.