netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/7] netfilter: add glue code to integrate nfnetlink

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1206041522130.16684@frira.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:38:04 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
To:	pablo@...filter.org
cc:	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] netfilter: add glue code to integrate nfnetlink_queue
 and ctnetlink


On Monday 2012-06-04 14:21, pablo@...filter.org wrote:
>+static int
>+ctnetlink_nfqueue_parse(const struct nlattr *attr, struct nf_conn *ct)
>+{
>+	const struct nlattr * const cda[CTA_MAX+1];

I suppose you wrote that because the same appears in function
headers/signatures

	void foo(const struct nlattr *const tb[]) { ... }

But there, it is actually equal to

	void foo(const struct nlattr *const *tb) { ... }

In either case, tb is writable. IMHO, [] should be avoided in
signatures to avoid self-confusion, as it seemed to occur in your
case, where cda is - unlike tb - really marked const.
You likely wanted

	const struct nlattr *cda[CTA_MAX+1];

>+       nla_parse_nested((struct nlattr **)cda, CTA_MAX, attr, ct_nla_policy);


--
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