[PATCH] CTA_PROTO_NUM is u_int8_t not u_int16_t (was Re: CTA_PROTO_NUM u_int8_t or u_int16_t)

[Krzysztof Oledzki]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Harald Welte wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:54:56AM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> <CUT>
>>> I think just the first patch is fine. I really hope we don't find
>>> more of these.
>>
>> It is not. It breaks old binaries:
>
> yes.  old libnetfilter_conntrack is broken, because it makes wrong size
> assumptions.  But if we'd start introdcucing the "new scheme" I
> proposed, we can guarantee not to run into any of these.
Only if new libnetfilter_conntrack will send different messages to 
differnet kernels (u_int16_t for 2.6.14 and u_int8_t for 2.6.15+).

Best regards,

 			Krzysztof Olędzki