On 06/01/11 18:23, Ben Pfaff wrote: > 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. Indeed, Jan's test is fine to fix this. Please, send a patch to Davem asap. -- 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
