[PATCH] CTA_PROTO_NUM is u_int8_t not u_int16_t (was Re:
CTA_PROTO_NUM u_int8_t or u_int16_t)
olenf at ans.pl
Fri Nov 25 10:23:54 CET 2005
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:
>>> 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+).
More information about the netfilter-devel