On 12.11.2010 12:11, Patrick McHardy wrote: > 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. Actually, what you can do is use NF_REPEAT as verdict and have the packet continue at the next rule based on marks. Something like this: Chain INPUT: -m mark --mark 0 -j NOT_QUEUED -m mark --mark 1 -j BACK_FROM_QUEUE Chain NOT_QUEUED: ... rules ... -j NFQUEUE [ nfqueue: return NF_REPEAT, set mark = 1 ] Chain BACK_FROM_QUEUE: ... further rules ... -- 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
