[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1279566876.11662.102.camel@powerslave>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:14:36 +0300
From: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...ia.com>
To: ext Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
"sameo@...ux.intel.com" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] netfilter: xt_condition: export list management code
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 18:13 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Monday 2010-07-19 16:15, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>
> >From: Luciano Coelho <coelho@...tbed>
> >
> >This patch isolates and exports the condition list management code, in
> >preparation for the CONDITION target to use it. No functional change,
> >just reorganization of the code.
>
> Well, I guess it would make more sense if the two extensions be in a
> single file. That would alleviate the need for export reorganizations,
> and also works because the module metadata overhead is large already.
Right. I'll change the code so that the two extensions are in the same
file/module. You're the second person to mention this already. ;)
> >@@ -3,12 +3,27 @@
> >
> > #include <linux/types.h>
> >
> >+#define XT_CONDITION_MAX_NAME_SIZE 30
> >+
> > struct xt_condition_mtinfo {
> >- char name[31];
> >+ char name[XT_CONDITION_MAX_NAME_SIZE + 1];
> > __u8 invert;
>
> Oh noes. Please please avoid any math operations inside []. It has
> already driven XT_FUNCTION_MAXNAMELEN into nuts ("was it now +1 or -1,
> or even -2 that we needed to pass for various functions?"). Just let MAX
> be 31 and have name[MAX].
Yeah, I had already done as you suggested in my previous module
(IDLETIMER), I don't know what I had in my head today when I did it
differently. Even the name of the macro is totally wrong (_SIZE), it
would make a tiny little bit more sense if it was _LEN. I'll change it.
> > MODULE_ALIAS("ip6t_condition");
> >
> >-struct condition_variable {
> >- struct list_head list;
> >- struct proc_dir_entry *status_proc;
> >- unsigned int refcount;
> >- bool enabled;
> >-};
>
> Given your excellent usage example of a CONDITION target, I think it
> even makes sense to enlarge the "enabled" variable to a full-fledged
> 32-bit value that can be &, | and ^'d, similar to nfmark.
Ok, that's a good idea, I'll do that.
Thanks for your comments!
--
Cheers,
Luca.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists