Hi Pablo, On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 04:34:04PM +1000, Duncan Roe wrote: > [..] > > Oh well in that case, how about: > > > > > struct pkt_buff *pktb_alloc2(int family, void *buf, size_t buf_size, void *data, size_t len, size_t extra); > > Getting better. But why do you still need 'extra'? As per other emails, no. I think it's fine not to zeroise that memory. > > > I.e. exactly as you suggested in > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter-devel/msg65830.html except s/head/buf/ > > > > And we tell users to dimension buf to NFQ_BUFFER_SIZE. We don't even need to > > expose pktb_head_size(). > > NFQ_BUFFER_SIZE tells what is the maximum netlink message size coming > from the kernel. That netlink message contains metadata and the actual > payload data. As per other emails, I'll define and document NFQ_BUFFER_SIZE. If you have a suggestion for a smaller value, I can put that in a v2. > > The pktbuff structure helps you deal with the payload data, not the > netlink message itself. Pablo, can we agree to proceed with > struct pkt_buff *pktb_alloc2(int family, void *buf, size_t buf_size, void *data, size_t len); then I can get on with the rest of the release. Cheers ... Duncan.
