netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/4] netfilter: Pass socket pointer down through okfn().

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:18:07 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc:	pablo@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] netfilter: Pass socket pointer down through okfn().

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 20:56:40 +0200

> This idea would imply to e.g. rename nf_hook_state into something not
> associated with netfilter. Otherwise I don't see any dependencies on
> netfilter.
> 
> I like the patches as-is and if not necessary we don't need to do this.

It's going to be NULL if netfilter didn't run because we only instantiate
the on-stack state when it's actually needed and we're going to call
down into netfilter.

Instantiating it unconditionally is not an option, because unless
netfilter runs setting up that structure is a complete waste of work.

Then we have strange semantics where this state thing is NULL,
depending upon whether netfilter was invoked or not.
--
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