Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. - 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/
