[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D266CE5.4000309@netfilter.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:31:17 +0100
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Ben Pfaff <blp@...ira.com>
CC: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
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 18:23, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> writes:
>
>> On 04/01/11 03:14, Jan Engelhardt 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)
> [...]
>>> [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.]
>>
>> Someone may include NLM_F_ATOMIC to a dump operation, in that case the
>> checking that you propose is not valid.
>
> Are you saying that NLM_F_MATCH and NLM_F_ATOMIC are mutually
> exclusive, and that NLM_F_ROOT|NLM_F_ATOMIC would also signal a
> dump operation? Otherwise the test that Jan proposes looks valid
> to me.
Indeed, Jan's test is fine to fix this. Please, send a patch to Davem asap.
--
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