On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 21:27 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Friday 2010-07-16 15:10, Luciano Coelho wrote: > >> > There is one problem with this solution, which is that it works in a > >> > per-connection basis (due to CONNMARK). This is not exactly what I > >> > want. I need to have this on a per-ruleset basis. For that, I need to > >> > have a MARK (variable?) which can be set independently of connections or > >> > packets. This is similar to the proposed condition match, but what is > >> > missing there is a way to set the condition with iptables itself, > >> > without requiring the userspace to change the procfs file. This could > >> > probably be achieved with a "CONDITION" target or something similar. > >> > Any ideas? > >> > >> Sounds useful. > > > >Okay, this was the kind of confirmation I wanted before jumping into the > >implementation. ;) I'll implement this target soon. > > My suggestion to have it combined with xt_condition. Yes, I also think that is the best idea. I'll implement a CONDITION target that will work together with the condition match. For now I'll use the non-final version you submitted some time ago. -- Cheers, Luca. -- 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
