[PATCH 0/7] more ctnetlink updates

[Patrick McHardy]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Pablo Neira wrote:

> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>> What about my objections to 3 and 4? 3 at least should not go in.
>
> I don't agree. In the case of patch 3, it's true that sizechecks are
> missing in some parts of the code and I'm going to fix it, but that is a
> different patch that is not related itself with the marking support.

The mark parts are related to the mark patch, aren't they?
Since other places have the same problem, a follow up patch
is fine, but I generally don't like patches that require
immediate fixing afterwards.