You were the one who asked for that patch.
> I do care about keeping the code as clean as possible so I don't
> run into road blocks when trying to rework input/output processing
> just because I let some bogon hack into the tree I must continue to
> support.
Ack.
> You do care about bridge netfiltering, so you are going to be the
> one to find the clean solution that doesn't touch net/ipv4/*.c :-)
I care about Linux. I absolutely don't need a bridging firewall for anything.
I just happen to know something about it.
> That could work too, I think you'll need to specify a seperate
> destructor in that case, and all this stuff ifdef'd on whether
> bridge netfiltering is enabled or not.
This brings me to another question: I've been told it is the general concensus
that this bridge firewall should be compiled in the kernel if
CONFIG_NETFILTER=y. Or should it be a user option? It is predicted that using
a user option will give alot of questions about the bridge firewall not
working.
> Again, talk to the netfilter folks. They may even have ideas
> for you that you haven't dreamt of yet.
Will do.
-- cheers, Bart- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/