Eric Leblond wrote: > Hello, > > On Thursday, 2008 April 10 at 6:56:48 +0200, Eric Leblond wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Tuesday, 2008 April 8 at 1:56:52 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>> Eric Leblond wrote: >>>> On Saturday, 2008 April 5 at 17:10:59 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>>>> Eric Leblond wrote: >>>> 'decision' keyword is not really a good choice. >>> I see, however, why isn't --nflog-prefix enough to label the logs from >>> iptables? >> Yes, but it forces user to define a system to be able to know if >> decision is DROP or ACCEPT. For example, all prefix have to be labelled >> like [DA]:$MYSTRING. Well, it works but it overload prefix which is less >> human readable. Furthermore, it steals some bits in the prefix field >> which is in ULOG rather small. > > Not receiving a response to this mail make me thing about what I will > need to do to have the same feature without the 'state' flag: > > A standard logging packet logging table contains packet that have been > dropped or accepted. One of the most relevant question for an > administrator is: "Which packet have been dropped with this criteria ?". > Thus, we need an easy and *fast* mean to differentiate dropped and > aceepted packet. IMHO, a 'state' flag is one of the easiest and cleanest > solution. The computation overload is really small compares to a parsing > of the prefix. Furthermore, this approach is not disruptive with > firewall rules generator who already have their log prefix. I see. It makes sense. Please, could you resend this patch using 'label' instead of 'state' which seems more to me more appropriate for this feature? -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
