Subject: Re: [resend] Passive OS fingerprint xtables match.

From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:07:19 +0400

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:53:05PM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([email-masked]) wrote:
> >That's hard - there is no hook number in the match function, so we do
> >not really know if it is forward, input or prerouting.
> 
> This is really needed, spamming the ring buffer is not a good option.
> 
> I'd say just add the hook number to xt_match_param. Its a bit
> inconsistent anyways that we're handing it to checkentry for
> validation, but not to the match function.

Doesn't checkentry receive a mask of all possible hooks? There is still
no per-packet hook number. Although we can always use INPUT hook since
its the most widely used one. And drop a comment about this abuse.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov