Re: [PATCH next v3] iptables: add xt_bpf match

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Maciej Żenczykowski
<zenczykowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> at a guess, there should be a --with/without option for it, and if
> --with=tool is specified build/configure should fail if support
> libraries are missing

Agreed on the fail hard.

After a brief offline discussion on --enable vs --with, will respin
with optional --enable-bpf-compiler. The option is disabled by
default. If it is enabled and pcap cannot be found, build fails.

If no further comments, I'll respin shortly.

>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:38:20AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, Jan 23 2013 at 10:59:28AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>> >> >> b) provide a separate utility to generate the BPF filter in text-based
>>>> >> >> format from some utility that accepts tcpdump-like syntax. The utility
>>>> >> >> can be distributed in the utils directory and it would not be
>>>> >> >> mandatory to compile it if libpcap is not present.
>>>> > [...]
>>>> >> > I would go with b) for now; we can always move to a) later on, but not
>>>> >> > the other way around (would kill backwards compatibility).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This sounds like the consensus (for the record, I also prefer this less
>>>> >> disruptive approach). In that case, I can submit a revised libxt_bpf with your
>>>> >> suggested changes right away, Pablo, and we can leave the separate
>>>> >> userspace tool for a later commit.
>>>> >
>>>> > Either way is fine, but please we should have that utility compiler
>>>> > integrated in the iptables tree by when 3.9-rc1 is released.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. I'll prepare a separate patch with the pcap-based utility, then.
>>
>> Just sent the patch. I'm no expert at autoconf and automake, so the
>> build logic can conceivably be shorter, but it works for me and the
>> logic is straightforward. I forgot to mention in the commit message
>> which versions of the tools I used: tested on a ubuntu 12.04 with
>> autoconf 2.68, automake 1.9.6 and libtool 2.4.2.
>>
>>>> Since utils is built as part of the root make invocation, I think it's
>>>> better to test for pcap.h in the root configure.ac and add a test in
>>>> utils/Makefile.am to build this tool if found, as opposed to creating
>>>> a separate configure.ac under utils. We can also discuss these
>>>> details after the first version of the patch, of course.
>>>
>>> That's fine by now, and it's way less bloat.
>> --
>> 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
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux