On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 17:17 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > I don't really see why > queueing is special though, dropping the packets in the ruleset > will break things just as well, as will routing them to a blackhole. > I guess the user just needs to be smart enough not to do this. Its user-space and no emergency packet may rely on user-space because it most likely is needed to maintain user-space. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency skbs
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency skbs
- References:
- [PATCH 00/29] swap over networked storage -v11
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency skbs
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency skbs
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency skbs
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency skbs
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 00/29] swap over networked storage -v11
- Prev by Date: Re: ioctls.h (Re: [PATCH][RFC] Make asm-generic/ioctl.h extensible by adding conditionals.)
- Next by Date: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 stacks for new link layers?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency skbs
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency skbs
- Index(es):
 |