[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1205141659410.11548@frira.vanv.qr>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:00:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
To: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Vincent Sanders <vincent.sanders@...labora.co.uk>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] netfilter: sanity checks on NFPROTO_NUMPROTO
On Monday 2012-05-14 15:56, Alban Crequy wrote:
>With the NFPROTO_* constants introduced by commit 7e9c6e ("netfilter: Introduce
>NFPROTO_* constants"), it is too easy to confuse PF_* and NFPROTO_* constants
>in new protocols.
>index e1b7e05..4f16552 100644
>--- a/net/netfilter/core.c
>+++ b/net/netfilter/core.c
>@@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ int nf_register_hook(struct nf_hook_ops *reg)
> struct nf_hook_ops *elem;
> int err;
>
>+ if (reg->pf >= NFPROTO_NUMPROTO || reg->hooknum >= NF_MAX_HOOKS) {
>+ BUG();
>+ return 1;
>+ }
Like always, I'd prefer a WARN() instead, here paired with return -EINVAL.
Especially when the error path is (seems) simple, halting the entire machine
does not look very nice.
--
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