From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Shortcuts to counting rules? Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:40:38 -0700 Message-ID: <4909E386.1000405@hp.com> References: <4908FDE9.7040006@hp.com> <49090A3D.40102@snapgear.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49090A3D.40102@snapgear.com> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Philip Craig Cc: netfilter@vger.kernel.org Philip Craig wrote: > Rick Jones wrote: > >>Are there any reasonable ways I might relax that requirement that >>iptables-dev be present? Are some of the datastructures used in the >>getsockopt() calls "stable enough" to do that that netperf could make >>the getsockopt() calls directly without having to pull-in libiptc? >>Netperf does not particularly care about the rules themselves, just >>their number. > > > libiptc is only intended for use by iptables itself. The fact that > iptables-dev includes libiptc is a bug IMO. There's probably some > applications out that that wrongly depend on it already though. I can see the appeal to an application since it does provide a nice abstraction. > The getsockopt() calls are part of the linux ABI. Using them is safe. > You just need to make sure you handle the case that they aren't > implemented. Time to go find their documentation then I suppose. thanks, rick jones