On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:44:35PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Thursday 2010-07-22 16:09, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> >+static int condition_mt_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par)
> >+{
> >+ struct xt_condition_mtinfo *info = par->matchinfo;
> >+ struct condition_variable *var;
> >+ struct condition_net *cond_net =
> >+ condition_pernet(current->nsproxy->net_ns);
>
> Cc'ing Alexey who has done the netns support.
>
> Alexey, you added par->net, but given Luciano just did it with
> current->nsproxy->net_ns, do we really need par->net?
In ->check, maybe, we can get away with current->nsproxy->net_ns.
But definitely not in ->destroy(), because destruction can happen
when _no_ task is in netns, so current->nsproxy->net_ns is 100% bogus.
Steps to reproduce:
iptables -A ...
exit
->destroy hook gets netns from par->net, ->checkentry does the same
for symmetry and less confusion.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
