On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:46:57PM +0200, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> On 11 September 2014 17:20, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +
> > +static int nf_tables_gen_notify(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *skb, int event)
> > +{
> > + struct nlmsghdr *nlh = nlmsg_hdr(skb);
> > + struct sk_buff *skb2;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + if (nlmsg_report(nlh) &&
> > + !nfnetlink_has_listeners(net, NFNLGRP_NFTABLES))
> > + return 0;
> > +
>
> The above logic is different from the other functions.
>
> I don't know if that was deliberate.
We don't have nft_ctx at that point. nlmsg_report(nlh) is basically
what ctx->report usually constains.
Unless I'm overlooking something obvious, this looks correct to me.
> > + err = -ENOBUFS;
> > + skb2 = nlmsg_new(NLMSG_GOODSIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (skb2 == NULL)
> > + goto err;
> > +
> > + err = nf_tables_fill_gen_info(skb2, net, NETLINK_CB(skb).portid,
> > + nlh->nlmsg_seq);
> > + if (err < 0) {
> > + kfree_skb(skb2);
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + err = nfnetlink_send(skb2, net, NETLINK_CB(skb).portid,
> > + NFNLGRP_NFTABLES, nlmsg_report(nlh), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +err:
> > + if (err < 0) {
> > + nfnetlink_set_err(net, NETLINK_CB(skb).portid, NFNLGRP_NFTABLES,
> > + err);
> > + }
> > + return err;
> > +}
> > +
>
> All the xx_notify() functions looks very similar. Do you think it
> worth to factorize the code?
I prefer if we focus on adding missing features, fixing bugs and so
on. We'll have the time to revisit things later on.
--
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
