On Monday 2012-02-13 10:06, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 04:49:07PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Wednesday 2012-02-08 16:16, Mr Dash Four wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> "ENOENT has many meanings, and iptables prints just one of them,
>> >> which is potentially misleading."
>> >>
>> > Thanks, this will be corrected I take it?
>>
>> Is this wording compatible enough with non-developers? :)
>>
>> diff --git a/libiptc/libiptc.c b/libiptc/libiptc.c
>> index 42d9784..4106afe 100644
>> --- a/libiptc/libiptc.c
>> +++ b/libiptc/libiptc.c
>> @@ -2730,7 +2730,10 @@ TC_STRERROR(int err)
>> { NULL, ENOPROTOOPT, "iptables who? (do you need to insmod?)" },
>> { NULL, ENOSYS, "Will be implemented real soon. I promise ;)" },
>> { NULL, ENOMEM, "Memory allocation problem" },
>> - { NULL, ENOENT, "No chain/target/match by that name" },
>> + { NULL, ENOENT, "An object was not found. Check that the chain, "
>> + "target/match extension, and/or per-extension "
>> + "named object exists. Look at `dmesg` for "
>> + "reports about the latter." },
>
>This makes sense to me.
>
>We still need better (more fine grain) error reporting though. That's
>one limitation that would be great to solve.
>
>Probably the netlink interface will allow us to solve this.
Yes. Did you see my most recent answer yet?:
http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=132705156805852&w=2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
