Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted text
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> writes:
> 
>>I seem to be missing something, the entire brnf_sysctl_call_tables
>>thing looks purely cosmetic to me, wouldn't it be better to simply
>>remove it?
> 
> 
> Well it is cosmetic in a user space visible way.  Which means I don't
> have a clue which if any user space programs or scripts care if we change
> the behavior. 
>
> I just looked in the git history and brnf_sysctl_call_tables has been
> that way since sysctl support was added to the bridge netfilter code.
> 
> The only comment I can found about the addition is:
> 
>     2003/12/24 19:32:34-08:00 bdschuym
>     [BRIDGE]: Add 4 sysctl entries for bridge netfilter behavioral control:
>     bridge-nf-call-arptables - pass or don't pass bridged ARP traffic to
>     arptables' FORWARD chain.
>     bridge-nf-call-iptables - pass or don't pass bridged IPv4 traffic to
>     iptables' chains.
>     bridge-nf-filter-vlan-tagged - pass or don't pass bridged vlan-tagged
>     ARP/IP traffic to arptables/iptables.
> 
> So since forcing the values to 0 or 1 doesn't seem hard to maintain
> I am uncomfortable with removing that check.


OK lets keep it then. Fixing the race seems overkill to me though.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/