[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1101061706080.14797@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 17:12:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
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 Thursday 2011-01-06 15:55, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>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
>>>>
>
>i getting confused, so ipset is also setting NLM_F_REPLACE to match the
>NLM_F_DUMP bitmask?
Any userspace program sending a (ge)netlink message with
NLM_F_CREATE|NLM_F_EXCL -- with the intent of creating an entry with
excl semantics --, will be misunderstood by genetlink.c to be a dump
request.
The problem is of general nature and not limited to ipset. I only
noticed it while making the ipset-genl patch, because ipset sends all
IPSET_CMD_CREATE requests with
NLM_F_REQUEST|NLM_F_ACK|NLM_F_CREATE|NLM_F_EXCL (see
ipset/lib/mnl.c).
--
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