[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100722191940.GA10029@x200>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:19:40 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Cc: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...ia.com>,
Netfilter Developer Mailing List
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, sameo@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] netfilter: xtables: inclusion of xt_condition
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:44:35PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Thursday 2010-07-22 16:09, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> >+static int condition_mt_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par)
> >+{
> >+ struct xt_condition_mtinfo *info = par->matchinfo;
> >+ struct condition_variable *var;
> >+ struct condition_net *cond_net =
> >+ condition_pernet(current->nsproxy->net_ns);
>
> Cc'ing Alexey who has done the netns support.
>
> Alexey, you added par->net, but given Luciano just did it with
> current->nsproxy->net_ns, do we really need par->net?
In ->check, maybe, we can get away with current->nsproxy->net_ns.
But definitely not in ->destroy(), because destruction can happen
when _no_ task is in netns, so current->nsproxy->net_ns is 100% bogus.
Steps to reproduce:
iptables -A ...
exit
->destroy hook gets netns from par->net, ->checkentry does the same
for symmetry and less confusion.
--
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