On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:03:38PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:25:54AM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:39:41PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h
> > > index c88ccbf..3776beb 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h
> > > @@ -221,6 +221,7 @@ enum nft_set_flags {
> > > * @NFTA_SET_KEY_LEN: key data length (NLA_U32)
> > > * @NFTA_SET_DATA_TYPE: mapping data type (NLA_U32)
> > > * @NFTA_SET_DATA_LEN: mapping data length (NLA_U32)
> > > + * @NFTA_SET_ID: set ID (NLA_U64)
> >
> > I think a U32 should be perfectly fine. These are not permanent IDs but just to
> > identify new sets contained within a batch, so we can always start at 0.
>
> Yes, I was considering using this also to output the set identifier
> for anonymous sets, but the dynamically allocated name should be fine
> so I'll stick to u32.
I think these are two different things. The set identifier is so far actually
a transaction identifier, mixing these will most likely get messy.
> Going back to the idea of using u64 to allocate the set/map names, I
> think we have to extend the set name, currently IFNAMSIZ is limited
> when mapping the name to set%lld, assuming a large u64 number.
The problem is more that this ID is chosen by userspace, so it's not suitable
for anonymous sets. I'd rather get rid of the names for anonymous sets
completely. For dumps we can just as well use a dynamic numeric identifier
to associate lookup expressions with sets. We don't really need a permanent
identifier.
> > > @@ -2534,7 +2619,8 @@ void nf_tables_unbind_set(const struct nft_ctx *ctx, struct nft_set *set,
> > > {
> > > list_del(&binding->list);
> > >
> > > - if (list_empty(&set->bindings) && set->flags & NFT_SET_ANONYMOUS)
> > > + if (list_empty(&set->bindings) && set->flags & NFT_SET_ANONYMOUS &&
> > > + !(set->flags & __NFT_SET_INACTIVE))
> >
> > Why are we not destroying anonymous inactive sets when unbinding? This means we're
> > either aborting or replaying the entire transaction, so it seems we should remove
> > them, no?
>
> The set may be already bound to the rule, we skip this here, so the
> set is released from the transaction. This is just to avoid a double
> free case.
I have to read the patch again, I was under the impression that a bound set
has already been comitted and we therefore won't fail anymore. Probably
misunderstood something.
--
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
