[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210218224200.GF22944@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 23:42:00 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, twoerner@...hat.com,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, tgraf@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak124 v3] audit: log nftables configuration change
events
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > If they appear in a batch tehy will be ignored, if the batch consists of
> > such non-modifying ops only then nf_tables_commit() returns early
> > because the transaction list is empty (nothing to do/change).
>
> Ok, one little inconvenient question: what about GETOBJ_RESET? That
> looks like a hybrid that modifies kernel table counters and reports
> synchronously. That could be a special case call in
> nf_tables_dump_obj() and nf_tables_getobj(). Will that cause a storm
> per commit?
No, since they can't be part of a commit (they don't implement the
'call_batch' function).
I'm not sure GETOBJ_RESET should be reported in the first place:
RESET only affects expr internal state, and that state changes all the time
anyway in response to network traffic.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists