[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F611669.6000903@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:06:33 +0100
From: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
CC: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Frank Danapfel <fdanapfe@...hat.com>,
Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enhance usability of /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports
(v2)
On 03/14/2012 08:43 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 21:33 +0100, Helge Deller wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
>> index f487f25..1f60398 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
>> @@ -2805,6 +2805,8 @@ static int proc_do_cad_pid(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>> * We use a range comma separated format (e.g. 1,3-4,10-10) so that
>> * large bitmaps may be represented in a compact manner. Writing into
>> * the file will clear the bitmap then update it with the given input.
>> + * If "add" or "release" is written in front of numbers or number ranges,
>> + * the given bits will be added to or released from the existing bitmap.
>> *
>
> What if I only write "add" or "release" ("add ", "release " too) into
> this file? Make sure you have tested this corner case.
Sure, I tested this case. It will not modify the the current port list.
But there were other cases which I initially didn't took care of, mostly
because I wanted to keep the parser simple.
Now, in the next version of the patch the following cases will be handled
correctly:
- "add release 100" (->syntax error)
- "release 100 add 100" (->with all in one line the result will not be
as expected because first bitmap_or() and then bitmap_andnot()
will be executed, so that the 100th bit becomes released instead
of added. Users will need to split this into two echo commands
otherwise -EINVAL will be returned.)
>> * Returns 0 on success.
>> */
>> @@ -2813,11 +2815,13 @@ int proc_do_large_bitmap(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>> {
>> int err = 0;
>> bool first = 1;
>> + bool add_or_release = 0, xrelease = 0;
>> size_t left = *lenp;
>> unsigned long bitmap_len = table->maxlen;
>> unsigned long *bitmap = (unsigned long *) table->data;
>> - unsigned long *tmp_bitmap = NULL;
>> - char tr_a[] = { '-', ',', '\n' }, tr_b[] = { ',', '\n', 0 }, c;
>> + unsigned long *tmp_bitmap = NULL, *release_bitmap = NULL;
>> + char tr_a[] = { '-', ',', ' ', '\n' },
>> + tr_b[] = { ',', ' ', '\n', 0 }, c;
>>
>> if (!bitmap_len || !left || (*ppos && !write)) {
>> *lenp = 0;
>> @@ -2841,8 +2845,9 @@ int proc_do_large_bitmap(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>> }
>> kbuf[left] = 0;
>>
>> - tmp_bitmap = kzalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(bitmap_len) * sizeof(unsigned long),
>> - GFP_KERNEL);
>> + tmp_bitmap = kzalloc(2 * BITS_TO_LONGS(bitmap_len) *
>> + sizeof(unsigned long), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + release_bitmap = &tmp_bitmap[BITS_TO_LONGS(bitmap_len)];
>
> So you double the size, and give the second half to 'release_bitmap',
> this will waste spaces when release_bitmap is short, right?
Yes.
> *I think* we
> can check if we want to release any bitmaps first, and then only
> allocate one of tmp_bitmap and release_bitmap.
The simpliest solution would be to use strcasestr(kbuf,"release") but
this function isn't available in the kernel.
Alternatively I could just search for e.g. upper- and lowercase
"release", but I don't like that either.
Maybe you have a better idea?
Overall, 65536 bits (ports) for the ip_local_reserved_ports bitfield
occupies 8K. With my patch this now becomes 16K. For desktop/server
usages I think this is OK, esp. since it's only used temporarily and
freed directly after usage again.
>> if (!tmp_bitmap) {
>> free_page(page);
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -2850,7 +2855,32 @@ int proc_do_large_bitmap(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>> proc_skip_char(&kbuf, &left, '\n');
>> while (!err && left) {
>> unsigned long val_a, val_b;
>> - bool neg;
>> + bool neg, found;
>> +
>> + left -= proc_skip_spaces(&kbuf);
>> + if (!left)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + if (first || add_or_release) {
>> + found = (0 == strnicmp(kbuf, "add ", 4));
>> + if (found) {
>
> I think we don't need an extra variable 'found' here.
Yes, thanks. Fixed in next version.
Thanks,
Helge
--
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