[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160623111630.GA2717@salvia>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:16:30 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Vishwanath Pai <vpai@...mai.com>
Cc: kaber@...sh.net, kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
johunt@...mai.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pai.vishwain@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] netfilter: Create revision 2 of xt_hashlimit to
support higher pps rates
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:11:38PM -0400, Vishwanath Pai wrote:
> +static void
> +cfg_copy(struct hashlimit_cfg2 *to, void *from, int revision)
> +{
> + if (revision == 1) {
> + struct hashlimit_cfg1 *cfg = (struct hashlimit_cfg1 *)from;
> +
> + to->mode = cfg->mode;
> + to->avg = cfg->avg;
> + to->burst = cfg->burst;
> + to->size = cfg->size;
> + to->max = cfg->max;
> + to->gc_interval = cfg->gc_interval;
> + to->expire = cfg->expire;
> + to->srcmask = cfg->srcmask;
> + to->dstmask = cfg->dstmask;
> + } else if (revision == 2) {
> + memcpy(to, from, sizeof(struct hashlimit_cfg2));
> + } else {
> + BUG();
BUG here is probably too much, this halts the system. I can see we
only use this somewhere else in this code. Instead, I'd suggest you
propagate an error back to userspace if this ever happen.
I would like to see if this spots any problem with our test
infrastructure under iptables/.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists