netdev - Re: inbound connection problems when "netlink: test for all flags of the NLM_F

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:04:06 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
cc:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	arthur.marsh@...ernode.on.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: inbound connection problems when "netlink: test for all flags
 of the NLM_F_DUMP composite" commit applied

On Wednesday 2011-01-19 17:54, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
>I still don't understand why you call this the nonsense. There are
>two dump flags NLM_F_ROOT and NLM_F_MATCH plus for convenience
>NLM_F_DUMP as 2 in 1. Avahi uses these specific flags. Why would
>anybody have added these specific flags if they can never be used
>separately?

It looks like the authors' intentinos were to make NLM_F_MATCH not
stop after a single entry has been found. So that sounds like dump,
ok.

But NLM_F_ROOT does not quite strike me as a dump request. What if I
wanted just a single item returned but still start at the root?

Or asking from a different direction, what's NLM_F_ROOT good for
when, say, struct rtmsg->rtm_table specifies (in rtnetlink) where to
start? (Particularly, 0 for an "invisible root" that contains all
tables.)

--
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