On Thursday 2010-08-05 16:41, luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> struct xt_condition_mtinfo {
>- char name[31];
>+ char name[27];
> __u8 invert;
>+ __u32 value;
Please also bump the .revision field to 2 with this patch so that
testing can always proceed without an ABI clash.
(rev 2 would then remain over the course of the remaining patches
you submit.)
(rev 0 = ipt_condition/pom-ng; rev 1 = xt_condition from Xt-a)
>+ char buf[14];
char buf[sizeof("4294967296")];
seems more intuitive :-)
>+ unsigned long long value;
>+
>+ if (length == 0)
>+ return 0;
>+
>+ if (length > sizeof(buf))
>+ return -EINVAL;
>+
>+ if (copy_from_user(buf, input, length) != 0)
>+ return -EFAULT;
>+
>+ buf[length - 1] = '\0';
>+
>+ if (strict_strtoull(buf, 0, &value) != 0)
>+ return -EINVAL;
>+
>+ if (value > (u32) value)
>+ return -EINVAL;
Is it possible to use just strict_strtoul?
>- return var->enabled ^ info->invert;
>+ return (var->value == info->value) ^ info->invert;
Since the condition value (cdmark) was thought of an nfmark-style thing,
would it perhaps make sense to model it after it
return (var->value & ~info->mask) ^ info->value;
Other opinions?
--
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
