Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> On Wednesday 2010-03-24 16:02, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>>>> xt_conntrack has been provided since v2.5.32. >>>>> >>>> I'm fine with the removal of old revisions, but how are you planning on >>>> informing users about removal of this module? Most people don't read >>>> feature-removal-schedule, and distributions are unable to help with >>>> user written scripts. >>> I would suggest to do the same as we did with disallowing DROP in the >>> nat table: >>> >>> - a message printed by iptables whenever -m state is used >>> >>> - a kernel message whenever whenever a rule with xt_state is created >>> >>> We did not actually do the kernel side with nat-prohibit-DROP, but I >>> regard it as very useful, as the community was very much able to help >>> itself if only they got the word - and it turned out that dmesg is >>> _the_ place people look in especially when they don't supervise >>> iptables output directly, as with, for example, boot splash where >>> messages are hidden, or server/router devices that one tends to >>> forget about. >> Yes, a kernel message sounds fine and less annoying than an >> iptables message since we can limit it to print only once. >> >> I'm not really convinced of removing state though, I has never >> caused any maintenance overhead, it requires a lot less memory >> than xt_conntrack and it seems more intuitive to write "-m state" >> than "-m conntrack --ctstate" to me. > > I oppose the removal of xt_state, *unless* the userspace "-m state" is > kept working and the conntrack module automatically supports it. Yes, that would be acceptable. > It's such a basic match that it's simply overkill to remove it. Agreed. -- 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
