Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Wednesday 2010-03-17 15:16, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>> I guess this makes sense, however iptables has special interpretations >>>> of errno values. How will this interact? >>> Since we are "just going back", the effect should be none - dig out >>> an old iptables and kernel and you get the same environment. >> No, we're now returning additional errno values from modules. >> >>> Well, libiptc prints a few specialized error messages for certain >>> codes (cf libiptc.c, TC_STRERROR), else uses plain libc strerror. >> That's what I was talking about. Unfortunately quite a few >> of the reasonable combinations have special meaning, f.i. >> TC_INIT/ENOENT, TC_INIT/EINVAL, ... > > We need only be concerned about TC_COMMIT (which calls setsockopt > with SO_SET_REPLACE, which leads to checkentry). > > TC_COMMIT returns 0 or 1, with errno set from what setsockopt > left - this will be the error code, as it is also just propagated > inside the kernel, if I read it right. > > So flow control ends up at iptables-standalone.c at the end > and the errno code is just used for printing/choosing an error code. > > If I missed something, please enlighten me. OK that seems mostly fine. Basically its just the NULL/ENOENT interpretation that might be confusing. -- 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
