On 07/01/11 14:15, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Friday 2011-01-07 02:31, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>>> 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. > > Turns out genetlink isn't the only place where &NLM_F_DUMP is used > without ==NLM_F_DUMP. > Thus I am adding it to other spots in net/ too. > > > > parent c235848c5a76520b90cf31bfbcc17720b24745a2 (v2.6.37-rc1-230-gc235848) > commit eaab9042b29931730d6785bb3f27b174fb2f5518 > Author: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Jan 7 13:53:49 2011 +0100 > > netlink: test for all flags of the NLM_F_DUMP composite > > Due to NLM_F_DUMP is composed of two bits, NLM_F_ROOT | NLM_F_MATCH, > when doing "if (x & NLM_F_DUMP)", it tests for _either_ of the bits > being set. Because NLM_F_MATCH's value overlaps with NLM_F_EXCL, > non-dump requests with NLM_F_EXCL set are mistaken as dump requests. > > Substitute the condition to test for _all_ bits being set. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
