On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:38:53AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 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
Yes, I read it.
Am I missing anything about it regarding this thread?
--
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
