Am 12.11.2010 12:01, schrieb Andrew Watts: > --- On Thu, 11/11/10, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 11.11.2010 10:01, Andrew Watts wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> The NF_CONTINUE verdict that Darryl Miles brings up in his 11/4 >>> post is very interesting. NF_CONTINUE would provide the NFQUEUE >>> target the added flexibility of, say, partial handling in >>> userspace. A queue-handler could have a set of criteria that, >>> when satisfied, would result in an immediate drop or accept. One >>> could then leave the rest of the packets to find their fate in the >>> chains/rules left to traverse. I would be interested in helping >>> to add this verdict if someone will take the lead (assuming a patch >>> hasn't already been written - has it?). > >> There's no difference between returning NF_ACCEPT or a new NF_CONTINUE. >> Queueing happens outside of the ruleset context, so in either case the >> packet would continue through the network stack directly, not after >> the NFQUEUE rule. > > I see. Is there a way to achieve this result under the current > infrastructure? Having the packet continue after the NFQUEUE rule? No, once the packet is reinjected, that rule might not even be there anymore. -- 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
