Hi,
> eeks... a compressed archie including a binary is not what people on
> linux-kernel usually want to see
whoops, gues who made a bodge of thier makefile :P
> anyway - thanks for your contribution. Why didn't you submit this for
> inclusion into netfilter/iptables CVS patch-o-matic
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 04:28:26AM +, Scaramanga wrote:
>
> On 2001.01.22 11:58:26 + Scaramanga wrote:
> > I wonder, would there be any interest/point in my NETLINK module, which
> > provides a backward compatible netlink interface. There are a good few
> > apps out there which rely on
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:26:00AM +, Scaramanga wrote:
>
> Yeah, after some quick googling and freshmeating, i came accross a daemon
> that picked up these QUEUEd packets and multiplexed them to various child
> processes, which seemed very innefcient, the documentation said something
>
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:26:00AM +, Scaramanga wrote:
Yeah, after some quick googling and freshmeating, i came accross a daemon
that picked up these QUEUEd packets and multiplexed them to various child
processes, which seemed very innefcient, the documentation said something
about
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 04:28:26AM +, Scaramanga wrote:
On 2001.01.22 11:58:26 + Scaramanga wrote:
I wonder, would there be any interest/point in my NETLINK module, which
provides a backward compatible netlink interface. There are a good few
apps out there which rely on it, and
Hi,
eeks... a compressed archie including a binary is not what people on
linux-kernel usually want to see
whoops, gues who made a bodge of thier makefile :P
anyway - thanks for your contribution. Why didn't you submit this for
inclusion into netfilter/iptables CVS patch-o-matic ? We
On 2001.01.22 11:58:26 + Scaramanga wrote:
> I wonder, would there be any interest/point in my NETLINK module, which
> provides a backward compatible netlink interface. There are a good few
> apps out there which rely on it, and its nice not to have to run a daemon
> and install a new
On 2001.01.22 11:58:26 + Scaramanga wrote:
I wonder, would there be any interest/point in my NETLINK module, which
provides a backward compatible netlink interface. There are a good few
apps out there which rely on it, and its nice not to have to run a daemon
and install a new library,
On 22 Jan 2001 11:58:26 +, Scaramanga wrote:
> Hi,
> >> What was wrong with the firewall netlink? My re-implementation works great
> >> here. I can't see why anything else would be needed, QUEUE seems twice as
> >> complex. Unless with QUEUE the userspce applications can make decisions on
>
Hi,
> This is true. This is called ipqmpd or something similar and written by
> Harald Welte, yes?
> Your best option is to either check out libipq (can be found in the
> directory of the same name in the iptables sources), which provides
> clean C interfaces, or the PERL interface, available
On 22 Jan 2001 10:26:00 +, Scaramanga wrote:
> Looking at the code it seemed to do the same thing as the old netlink, but
> with more complexity, to what end though, i couldnt tell, was only a brief
> skim.
So you can do whatever you want with it.
> > $ sed -n -e '1874,1876p'
Hi,
> QUEUE means to pass the packet to userspace (if supported by the kernel).
Looking at the code it seemed to do the same thing as the old netlink, but
with more complexity, to what end though, i couldnt tell, was only a brief
skim.
> $ sed -n -e '1874,1876p'
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Scaramanga wrote:
> Under Linux 2.2.x I used to be able to use ipchains to send packet to a
> netlink socket so that my userspace application could further analyze
> the packet data.
>
> Since kernel 2.4 and iptables, I have not enjoyed the same functionality,
> has it been
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Scaramanga wrote:
Under Linux 2.2.x I used to be able to use ipchains to send packet to a
netlink socket so that my userspace application could further analyze
the packet data.
Since kernel 2.4 and iptables, I have not enjoyed the same functionality,
has it been
Hi,
QUEUE means to pass the packet to userspace (if supported by the kernel).
Looking at the code it seemed to do the same thing as the old netlink, but
with more complexity, to what end though, i couldnt tell, was only a brief
skim.
$ sed -n -e '1874,1876p'
On 22 Jan 2001 10:26:00 +, Scaramanga wrote:
Looking at the code it seemed to do the same thing as the old netlink, but
with more complexity, to what end though, i couldnt tell, was only a brief
skim.
So you can do whatever you want with it.
$ sed -n -e '1874,1876p'
Hi,
This is true. This is called ipqmpd or something similar and written by
Harald Welte, yes?
Your best option is to either check out libipq (can be found in the
directory of the same name in the iptables sources), which provides
clean C interfaces, or the PERL interface, available from
On 22 Jan 2001 11:58:26 +, Scaramanga wrote:
Hi,
What was wrong with the firewall netlink? My re-implementation works great
here. I can't see why anything else would be needed, QUEUE seems twice as
complex. Unless with QUEUE the userspce applications can make decisions on
what to do
Hi,
Under Linux 2.2.x I used to be able to use ipchains to send packet to a
netlink socket so that my userspace application could further analyze
the packet data.
Since kernel 2.4 and iptables, I have not enjoyed the same functionality,
has it been deprecated in favour of a better method, if
Hi,
Under Linux 2.2.x I used to be able to use ipchains to send packet to a
netlink socket so that my userspace application could further analyze
the packet data.
Since kernel 2.4 and iptables, I have not enjoyed the same functionality,
has it been deprecated in favour of a better method, if
20 matches
Mail list logo
