On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:38:23AM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 01:34:11PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:37:56AM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > [ sorry accidentally dropped netfilter-devel ] > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:27:08PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > If some modules are missing while processing a rule batch, the updates > > > > are aborted to start scratch since the nfnl lock was released. If the > > > > rule-set contains this configuration (in this order): > > > > > > > > #1 rule using anonymous set > > > > #2 rule requiring module autoload > > > > > > > > The anonymous set will be released when aborting. This patch fixes this > > > > by passing a context variable (autoload) that can be used to decide if > > > > the anonymous set has to be released or not. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > I guess we can encapsulate that autoload into a context information structure > > > > in the future in case any other information is needed in the rule destroy path > > > > to make this look nicer. > > > > > > > > I started hacking on two patches to net-next, one to include table, chains and > > > > set into the batch and follow up to add atomic updates for sets. @Patrick: I > > > > think that should not interfer with your set enhancements. > > > > > > Wouldn't be a big problem, they're pretty much contained to newset(). > > > > > > Regarding this patch - I'd really prefer to just fix batches to include sets > > > instead of changing all these function signatures just to handle this very > > > specific case. > > > > If the patch that results from adding the set into the batch support > > is ~100 LOC, we can pass that to -stable, but if it doesn't, we'll > > have to pass this first or tell people that they need to load all > > modules as a workaround. > > I guess we don't necessarily would have to pass it to -stable since its > not a regression. > > > > I'm wondering how this will work in case of anonymous sets though, right now > > > we need two transactions so userspace can attach the new set to the lookup > > > expression. > > > > The set definition and the elements need to be included in the lookup > > expression for anonymous sets, can you think of any better solution? > > I think we can use some identifiers generated by userspace to tie them > both together. Something like a unique numeric identifier (unique within > the transaction). That can be done, but I don't see why we allow the creation of anonymous sets out of the scope of a rule since: * They can only be used by one single rule. * You cannot update them by adding/deleting elements. The current API allows creating an anonymous set that can be left unused. I think we should only allow the creation of non-anonymous sets via NFT_MSG_NEWSET at some point. -- 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
