[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D25D7CD.6070006@netfilter.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:55:09 +0100
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
CC: Netfilter Developer Mailing List
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Networking Developer Mailing List
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: genetlink misinterprets NEW as GET
On 06/01/11 15:25, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2011-01-06 14:48, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>>
>>> /* 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.
>>
>> Hm, NLM_F_CREATE | NLM_F_EXCL is not equal to NLM_F_DUMP.
>>
>> You must be hitting -EOPNOTSUPP elsewhere.
>
> No, I am hitting EOPNOTSUPP here; right it's not equal, sorry.
> But nlmsg_flags is tested for NLM_F_MATCH (0x200), which is provided by
> NLM_F_EXCL. ipset does use NLM_F_EXCL and thus ran into this.
i getting confused, so ipset is also setting NLM_F_REPLACE to match the
NLM_F_DUMP bitmask?
--
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