From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 23:45:52 +0200 > By renaming this, you're not fixing up things the semantics. It seems > to me you just want to find a quick path to solve inconsistencies in > your code. Agreed, this looks just like messing around with naming to me. But to the original issue, that of xt_bpf, I wonder about a few things: 1) If we have a kernel pointer embedded in a user provided datastructure, what takes care of 32-bit compat applications uploading xt_bpf rules on a 64-bit kernel? Won't the size be wrong or does it not matter and is in some way helped by that 8-byte alignment thing there? 2) The user can't care about the type of "filter" in xt_bpf_info, so we can use whatever name we want for the type. Therefore you can just do something like: struct bpf_prog; struct xt_bpf_info { __u16 bpf_program_num_elem; struct sock_filter bpf_program[XT_BPF_MAX_NUM_INSTR]; /* only used in the kernel */ struct bpf_prog *filter __attribute__((aligned(8))); }; and then you won't need any casting. -- 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