[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1101040304500.29858@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:14:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To: Netfilter Developer Mailing List <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
cc: Linux Networking Developer Mailing List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: genetlink misinterprets NEW as GET
Hey there,
I can't really say whether it's genetlink or netlink to blame,
but I noticed that a request with
nlmsg_flags = NLM_F_CREATE | NLM_F_EXCL
to a genl-registered component can return -EOPNOTSUPP because it does
not have a dumpit function defined in struct genl_ops. Make sense?
Not at first sight at least.
include/linux/netlink.h has this nice anecdote:
/* Modifiers to GET request */
#define NLM_F_ROOT 0x100
#define NLM_F_MATCH 0x200
#define NLM_F_ATOMIC 0x400
#define NLM_F_DUMP (NLM_F_ROOT|NLM_F_MATCH)
/* Modifiers to NEW request */
#define NLM_F_REPLACE 0x100
#define NLM_F_EXCL 0x200
#define NLM_F_CREATE 0x400
#define NLM_F_APPEND 0x800
Except there is nothing that declares a particular Netlink message
as "GET" or "NEW". Subsequently, genetlink chokes:
if (nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_DUMP)
if (ops->dumpit == NULL)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
Because NLM_F_CREATE | NLM_F_EXCL == NLM_F_DUMP.
That, of course, is absolutely bogus.
[N.B.: I am also wondering whether
(nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_DUMP) == NLM_F_DUMP
may have been desired, because NLM_F_DUMP is composed of two bits.]
--
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