On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:25:13PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Thursday 2012-07-12 17:49, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > >> +config NETFILTER_XT_TARGET_SYSRQ > >> + tristate '"SYSRQ" - remote sysrq invocation' > > > >I guess this is useful for user, eg. you can reboot your crashed > >system from your office in case that cheap comodity hardware without > >remote management tools (eg. HP's ILO or Dell's iDRAC). > > > >Still, I think that including this in Netfilter is a bit of abuse > >since this is out of the scope of providing some firewalling feature. > > David Miller has stated his opinion already last year, and he's > for the Netfilter variant: > http://markmail.org/message/d7kpczdbtpcxwli6 I think that affirmation is true in the context of: [PATCH]: Add Network Sysrq Support but not sure it's out of it. He probably prefered the Netfilter option because, comparing it to the Netfilter approach, it looks nicer. Well, just look at all those sysfs and proc interfaces he was proposing for that approach (it seems quite ugly to me). You can use the udp_encap hook (that Florian mentioned) plus some genetlink interface and little user-space tool to make it out of netfilter. Most of the xt_SYSRQ code can be reused and the genetlink interface plus one library can be added with little extra work. @David: just to put you into context. Jan is proposing to merge xt_SYSRQ into mainstream, we are discussing if it would be better to make it out of it (so people do not depend on the firewalling utilities to get it working) based on a different proposal described above. -- 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
