On Saturday 2010-02-06 14:08, Bart De Schuymer wrote: >David Miller schreef: >> >>> At this time I am more in favor of fixing userland... >> >> Compatability issues between 32-bit and 64-bit interfaces >> when running on a 64-bit kernel should _always_ be handled >> in the kernel via the compat layer. >> >> Every attempt to do this in userspace somehow been ugly and has >> utterly failed. > >I actually think the solution inside the ebtables userspace code is very >simple and elegant. The extra code for userspace to fix the few ebtables >matches that still have problems would be simple too. >If I'd have known about this mandatory compat layer 7 years ago I >wouldn't have bothered trying to fix it in userspace. A simple kernel >patch of mine to get ebtables userspace running on a user32/kernel64 >system was accepted by you back in 2003 >(http://osdir.com/ml/linux.network.bridge.ebtables.devel/2003-07/msg00028.html). >I can't tell how many of these systems are running ebtables but >considering most of the functionality has been working on a >user32/kernel64 system since 2004 I think it's safe to say that >Florian's patch will break a few systems. Apart from this fact I have no >objection to Florian's patch, although it seems strange that such a >simple solution in userspace needs a large additional codebase in the >kernel... >I'm not familiar with the way this compat layer works, but is there a >standard way to ensure that old ebtables binaries don't use the compat >layer, while a new version of the userspace program would? Xtables uses revisions, and extensions with problematic layouts use match->compat_from_user that is non-NULL. -- 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
