Re: [PATCH 1/2 nf-next] netfilter: nf_tables: Introduce stateful object update operation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 8/21/19 12:09 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Fernando Fernandez Mancera <ffmancera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This patch adds the infrastructure needed for the stateful object update
>> support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fernando Fernandez Mancera <ffmancera@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  include/net/netfilter/nf_tables.h |  6 +++
>>  net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c     | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>  2 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/netfilter/nf_tables.h b/include/net/netfilter/nf_tables.h
>> index dc301e3d6739..dc4e32040ea9 100644
>> --- a/include/net/netfilter/nf_tables.h
>> +++ b/include/net/netfilter/nf_tables.h
>> @@ -1123,6 +1123,9 @@ struct nft_object_ops {
>>  	int				(*dump)(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>  						struct nft_object *obj,
>>  						bool reset);
>> +	int				(*update)(const struct nft_ctx *ctx,
>> +						  const struct nlattr *const tb[],
>> +						  struct nft_object *obj);
> 
> maybe adda 'bool commit' argument here.
> 

How is that argument going to be used? If 'commit' is false we should
just check that values are fine but not update them?

>> +	err = obj->ops->update(ctx, (const struct nlattr * const *)tb, obj);
> 
> Then, set it to 'false' here.
> You would have to keep 'tb' allocated and place it on the 'trans'
> object.
> 
Yes, I agree on updating the object in the commit phase. But I am not
sure about how I should place it on 'trans'. Any hints? Thanks :-)

I am also writing some userspace shell tests.

>> +	nft_trans_obj_update(trans) = true;
> 
> 	nft_trans_obj_update_tb(trans) = tb;
> 
>> -			nft_clear(net, nft_trans_obj(trans));
>> -			nf_tables_obj_notify(&trans->ctx, nft_trans_obj(trans),
>> -					     NFT_MSG_NEWOBJ);
>> -			nft_trans_destroy(trans);
>> +			if (nft_trans_obj_update(trans)) {
> 
> 				nft_trans_obj(trans)->ops->update(&trans->ctx,
> 					      nft_trans_obj_update_tb(trans),
> 					      nft_trans_obj(trans),
> 					      true);
> 
> 				kfree(nft_trans_obj_update_tb(trans));
> 
> 
> Because otherwise we will update objects while we're not yet sure that
> we can process/handle the entire batch.
> 
> I think we should, if possible, only update once we've made it to
> the commit phase.
> 



[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux