On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:40:06PM +0900, Taehee Yoo wrote: > 2018-07-03 19:20 GMT+09:00 Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 08:44:52PM +0900, Taehee Yoo wrote: > >> This patch fixes below. > >> 1. check null pointer of rb_next. > >> rb_next can return null. so null check routine should be added. > >> 2. check whether an interval flags is set or not. > >> If interval flags is given, both a start node and a end node > >> should be removed at once. If interval flags it not given, > >> is doesn't matter. > > > > Thank you for reviewing! > > > For #2, I would prefer we reject rbtree for single elements. I'm going > > to send a patch for this. > > > > Would you rebase 1. and 3. on top? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Of course! > Do you mean that the 'top' is current top? or next top? I mean, on top of this one: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/940650/ which makes sure we cannot use the interval set with single elements, which I understand is one of the problems this patch is addressing. 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
