On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 09:05:34AM +0800, Gao feng wrote: > 于 2012年05月24日 22:38, Pablo Neira Ayuso 写道: > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:54:42PM +0800, Gao feng wrote: > > [...] > >>>>> I don't see why we need this new field. > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems to be set to 1 in each structure that has set: > >>>>> > >>>>> .ctl_compat_table > >>>>> > >>>>> to non-NULL. So, it's redundant. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moreover, you already know from the protocol tracker itself if you > >>>>> have to allocate the compat ctl table or not. > >>>>> > >>>>> In other words: You set compat to 1 for nf_conntrack_l4proto_generic. > >>>>> Then, you pass that compat value to generic_init_net via ->inet_net > >>>>> again, but this information (that determines if the compat has to be > >>>>> done or not) is already in the scope of the protocol tracker. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> because some protocols such l4proto_tcp6 and l4proto_tcp use the same init_net > >>>> function. the l4proto_tcp6 doesn't need compat sysctl, so we should use this new > >>>> field to identify if we should kmemdup compat_sysctl_table. > >>> > >>> Then, could you use two init_net functions? one for TCP for IPv4 and another > >>> for TCP for IPv6? > >> > >> Of cause, if you prefer to impletment it in this way. > > > > If this removes the .compat field that you added, then use two > > init_net functions, yes. > > Sorry I miss something. > > nf_ct_l4proto_unregister_sysctl also uses .compat to identify if we > can unregister the compat sysctl. > > if we register l4proto_tcp and l4proto_tcp6 both. without .compat, > when unregister l4proto_tcp6, the compat sysctl will be unregister too. > > So maybe we have to use .compat. Could you resolve this by checking pn->ctl_compat_header != NULL ? -- 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
