Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 04/01/11 03:14, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> /* Modifiers to GET request */ >> #define NLM_F_ROOT 0x100 >> #define NLM_F_MATCH 0x200 >> #define NLM_F_ATOMIC 0x400 >> #define NLM_F_DUMP (NLM_F_ROOT|NLM_F_MATCH) [...] >> [N.B.: I am also wondering whether >> (nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_DUMP) == NLM_F_DUMP >> may have been desired, because NLM_F_DUMP is composed of two bits.] > > Someone may include NLM_F_ATOMIC to a dump operation, in that case the > checking that you propose is not valid. Are you saying that NLM_F_MATCH and NLM_F_ATOMIC are mutually exclusive, and that NLM_F_ROOT|NLM_F_ATOMIC would also signal a dump operation? Otherwise the test that Jan proposes looks valid to me. -- 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
