On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 21:19 +0200, ext Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> 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.
Very good point. I guess that when Patrick suggested using
current->nsproxy->net_ns, he meant only for the module_params part.
I'll be removing that anyway. And I'll change the code to use par->net
instead of current->nsproxy->net_ns to avoid the problem in _destroy.
Thanks for your comments!
I must admit that I was a bit insecure about this code. That's why I
sent a RFC early enough. ;)
--
Cheers,
Luca.
--
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
