Patch for geoip match agains kernel 2.6.28

Patch for geoip match agains kernel 2.6.28

[Svein Olav Bjerkeset]

Hi,

Changes in "struct xt_match" from kernel 2.6.27 to 2.6.28 made the latest
version og Geoip match (Feb 11th 2008) from kernel version 2.6.28 on. I have
developed a patch that will make Geoip match work with 2.6.28.

The patch can be downloaded from the following URL:
http://bjerkeset.com/patches/geoip-match-2.6.28.patch.gz

The patch is against
http://people.netfilter.org/acidfu/patchlets/geoip.tar.gz as of Feb 11th
2008.

Regards,
Svein Olav Bjerkeset

Re: Patch for geoip match agains kernel 2.6.28

[NICOLAS BOULIANE]

Hi Svein,

Thanks for this patch. I'll update my patchlet repository as soon as I get home.

peace,
acidfu.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Svein Olav Bjerkeset
<svein.olav@bjerkeset.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Changes in "struct xt_match" from kernel 2.6.27 to 2.6.28 made the latest
> version og Geoip match (Feb 11th 2008) from kernel version 2.6.28 on. I have
> developed a patch that will make Geoip match work with 2.6.28.
>
> The patch can be downloaded from the following URL:
> http://bjerkeset.com/patches/geoip-match-2.6.28.patch.gz
>
> The patch is against
> http://people.netfilter.org/acidfu/patchlets/geoip.tar.gz as of Feb 11th
> 2008.
>
> Regards,
> Svein Olav Bjerkeset
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: Patch for geoip match agains kernel 2.6.28

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Friday 2009-01-23 03:22, NICOLAS BOULIANE wrote:
>
>Thanks for this patch. I'll update my patchlet repository as soon as I get home.
>
>peace,
>acidfu.

People still use POM patchlets? Gosh...

>On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Svein Olav Bjerkeset
><svein.olav@bjerkeset.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Changes in "struct xt_match" from kernel 2.6.27 to 2.6.28 made the latest
>> version og Geoip match (Feb 11th 2008) from kernel version 2.6.28 on. I have
>> developed a patch that will make Geoip match work with 2.6.28.
>>
>> The patch can be downloaded from the following URL:
>> http://bjerkeset.com/patches/geoip-match-2.6.28.patch.gz
>>
>> The patch is against
>> http://people.netfilter.org/acidfu/patchlets/geoip.tar.gz as of Feb 11th
>> 2008.

FYI, please try the geoip as packaged in xtables-addons.
Like all extensions in it, they automatically receive the necessary
API updates all at once the way it is written.
Also, this geoip has an exponential speedup.
Linux distros even have packages for it.


thanks,
Jan

Re: Patch for geoip match agains kernel 2.6.28

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2009-01-23 03:22, NICOLAS BOULIANE wrote:
>> Thanks for this patch. I'll update my patchlet repository as soon as I get home.
>>
>> peace,
>> acidfu.
> 
> People still use POM patchlets? Gosh...

I'm planning to give a spin to POM to keep some (minor number of)
patches in it. For example, AFAIK xtables-addons cannot contain patches
like ACCOUNT, since they require changes in the main kernel.

My opinion on pom-ng and xtables-addons is still the same. I think that
they don't have a reason with the current kernel development cycle.

And, of course, if Nicolas wants to keep its patchset in pom-ng updated,
I would be OK with it.

-- 
"Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers

Re: Patch for geoip match agains kernel 2.6.28

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Friday 2009-01-23 10:51, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Friday 2009-01-23 03:22, NICOLAS BOULIANE wrote:
>>> Thanks for this patch. I'll update my patchlet repository as soon as I get home.
>>>
>>> peace,
>>> acidfu.
>> 
>> People still use POM patchlets? Gosh...
>
>I'm planning to give a spin to POM to keep some (minor number of)
>patches in it. For example, AFAIK xtables-addons cannot contain patches
>like ACCOUNT, since they require changes in the main kernel.

That is true. But the few extensions that I know of that patch kernel
files (ACCOUNT, layer7, ..) are not POM archives, but true
unified-diff style patches, making it a lot easier to patch them in
because most SCM or near-SCM tools (like quilt and stgit) support
unidiffs.

>My opinion on pom-ng and xtables-addons is still the same. I think that
>they don't have a reason with the current kernel development cycle.

Sort of they do (both). Almost like linux-staging, perhaps. I really
don't know what to make of extensions being ... not really rejected,
but not accepted either ... that have their place in a daily life
IMHO.

>And, of course, if Nicolas wants to keep its patchset in pom-ng updated,
>I would be OK with it.

Sure. But it would be beneficial for the end-user to receive
the optimizations made since too.