Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Different thing is to indicate the bit number from an immediate, ie. > we use set_bit() based on the register data that we get, so we can use > maps as Patrick suggests. Right. > > I don't want to resubmit until there is consensus as to what the > > preferred solution is. > > > > We could go for a 3rd alternative, namely: > > > > u16 bit = regs->data[priv->sreg]; > > set_bit(bit, ct->labels); > > > > i.e. have userspace place the _bit_ that we want to set in the > > source register. > > > > If we go for sreg that would be my favored solution. > > I'm fine with this. Ok. Unless Patrick objects this is what I'll work on, i.e. have nft_ct grab the bit number to toggle from the source register. > > The only drawback vs #1 is that get and set work differently > > (get places all labels into dreg, set expects bit to set). > > > > (We also need to validate at eval time but thats not a problem > > in this case). > > You mean a check to make sure we don't go over the boundary, just to > avoid crashing. That seems OK to me. Yes, thats what I meant. -- 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
