[avahi] [PATCH] [RFC] Untested interface limitation patch

[Ted Percival]

Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 12.05.08 01:45, Stefan de Konink (avahi at ml.kinkrsoftware.nl) wrote:
>>  > > I'd prefer if we'd also get an interface blacklist at the same time
>>  > > as a whitelist, but that wouldn't hinder me to merge your
>>  > > patch. (i.e. "deny-interfaces" would be cool in addition to
>>  > > "allow-interface").
>>
>> I'll do this too then. Since it is the same function. What would be the
>> resolve scenario? First deny then allow?
> 
> For security reasons deny should have the last word.

I agree. I'd call them "allow-interfaces" and "deny-interfaces".

How about allowing wildcard matching of interface names, eg.
   allow-interfaces=eth*

That might be easier for the people who want to enable or disable Avahi 
on their tun/tap/lo/ppp interfaces.