On Thursday 2010-12-16 15:05, Thomas Graf wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:54:26PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> > BTW, can response messages - all those leading up to NLMSG_DONE -
>> > have different nlmsg_type, or not?
>>
>> They all have the same type.
>
>This is not a MUST. It is perfectly legal to f.e.:
>
> -> FOO_GET (seq=1, NLM_F_REQUEST)
> <- FOO_DEL (seq=1, NLM_F_MULTI)
> <- FOO_ADD (seq=1, NLM_F_MULTI)
> <- NLMSG_DONE (seq=1)
Oh great, now the confusion is complete. One person says this, another
says something else. Best of all, the Netlink RFC leaves it unspecified,
so it's all hearsay, beliefs and Perl5-style ("Source acts as normative
reference") referencing. I guess we are doomed until the original
Netlink3549 authors step up and tell us their intentions.
As I see it, we need a discussion to specify what is to be done with
unspecified parts, with 3549 as an origin.
--
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
