netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments)

To: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments)
From: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:52:25 +0200
Cc: netfilter@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008120119370.13569-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 01:22:53AM +1000
Mail-followup-to: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netfilter@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20000811162634.A3814@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008120119370.13569-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Jan Echternach <jan.echternach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
[Cc'ed to netdev]

On Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 01:22:53AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> The NLMSG_ macros must be used when modifing or accessing a netlink
> bytestream.  See netlink(3) and netlink(7).

But why?  IMHO, NLMSG_* just add an uneccessary wrapper for messages
that can't ever have multiple parts.  I don't see it as a clean
interface in this case.

And are netlink(3) and netlink(7) really accurate for
NETLINK_FIREWALL?  They seem to concentrate on NETLINK_ROUTE.  For
example, both man pages refer to libnetlink which only supports
NETLINK_ROUTE.

Should NLMSG_* be used by netfilter targets for all kinds of netlink
messages over NETLINK_FIREWALL or NETLINK_NFLOG type sockets?

-- 
Jan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>