[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181003091941.cbaceffk3uwrqwjo@salvia>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:19:41 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Chenbo Feng <chenbofeng.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
maze@...gle.com, Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] netfilter: xt_quota: fix the behavior of
xt_quota module
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 06:23:08PM -0700, Chenbo Feng wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/xt_quota.h b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/xt_quota.h
> index f3ba5d9..d72fd52 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/xt_quota.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/xt_quota.h
> @@ -15,9 +15,11 @@ struct xt_quota_info {
> __u32 flags;
> __u32 pad;
> __aligned_u64 quota;
> -
> - /* Used internally by the kernel */
> - struct xt_quota_priv *master;
> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
> + atomic64_t counter;
> +#else
> + __aligned_u64 remain;
> +#endif
> };
Sorry, just noticed, one more question though:
Would this break backward compatibility with existing iptables 32-bits
binaries?
New kernel will hit size mismatch given that master pointer area used
to be 32-bits but now it is 64-bits long?
Let me know, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists