On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:05:16AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:16:29PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 06:41:14PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 06:30:18PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:06:05PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +static int netlink_events_setelem_newgen_cb(const struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
> > > > > + int type,
> > > > > + struct netlink_mon_handler *monh)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + setelem_cache_print_default(monh);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return MNL_CB_OK;
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I would really like we don't rely on newgen for this. If there is no
> > > > way to catch a case with the existing way we represent this, then we
> > > > probably need to fix things from the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Before we follow that patch, I would like to understand what corner
> > > > case is pushing us to use the newgen event.
> > >
> > > It is required for half-open ranges occurring at the end of the
> > > transaction: For those, we only get a single element without
> > > EXPR_F_INTERVAL_END flag set. Since this could also be the first part of
> > > a regular range, monitor has to wait for what's next - which is in doubt
> > > only the NEWGEN message.
> > >
> > > Maybe we could introduce a new flag to mark these?
> >
> > Right, I think we need the new flag indeed, only for userspace.
> >
> > Would you propose one and the specific semantics for it?
>
> My current PoC passes the additional flag as userdata attribute so the
> kernel won't reject the element due to unknown flag. Is that fine with
> you? I'm trying to avoid changing the kernel so the solution is
> backwards compatible.
I suggest you add a new flag to SET_ELEM instead. Userdata area usage
is exclusive to userspace.
Thanks!
--
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
