[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.01.1007221733360.12308@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:36:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...ia.com>
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>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] netfilter: xtables: inclusion of xt_condition
On Thursday 2010-07-22 17:16, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>> >+ ret = strict_strtoul(val, 0, &l);
>> >+ if (ret == -EINVAL || ((uint)l != l))
>> >+ return -EINVAL;
>>
>> >+ *((u32 *) ((u8 *) cond_net + (size_t) kp->arg)) = l;
>>
>> I don't think we need this level of granularity; let the options be
>> global, similar to what xt_hashlimit does.
>
>I did this according to Patrick's comment:
>> > proc_net_condition is a global variable, so this won't work for
>> > namespaces. What the code does is reinitialize it when instantiating
>> > a new namespace, so it will always point to the last instantiated
>> > namespace.
>> >
>> > The same problem exists for the condition_list, each namespace
>> > should only be able to access its own conditions.
>>
>> This also applies to the permission variables. Basically, we shouldn't
>> be having any globals except perhaps the mutex. You probably need a
>> module_param_call function to set them for the correct namespace (you
>> can access that through current->nsproxy->net_ns).
>
>I found it a bit strange to be able to change the module params in a
>per-netns basis, but it is actually possible if you're changing the
>parameters via sysfs. I tried it and it even seems to work. ;)
>
>I can't see any module parameters in the xt_hashlimit.c file. Am I
>looking in the wrong place?
Oops, xt_recent.c.
>I would be fine with making the module params global (as they were
>before), if that's fine with Patrick too.
"When was the last time you needed to change the default ownership
when you _also_ have the possibility to chown each procfs file
individually?"
>> (I am not even sure if kp->arg can be non-multiples-of-4, in which case
>> this would be an alignment violation even.)
>
>I'm passing size_t in kp->arg. It looks quite ugly, because usually
>kp->arg is a pointer to some data. But at least this way, using
>offsetof(), I could avoid lots of repeated code for the options...
if kp->arg is 1, ((u8*)cond_net + kp->arg) yields a pointer that's
usually not aligned for u32. (And C pedants would probably argue
that is should be char* not u8*, even if the one is a typedef
of another.)
--
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