On 2021-02-18 23:42, Florian Westphal wrote: > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If they appear in a batch tehy will be ignored, if the batch consists of > > > such non-modifying ops only then nf_tables_commit() returns early > > > because the transaction list is empty (nothing to do/change). > > > > Ok, one little inconvenient question: what about GETOBJ_RESET? That > > looks like a hybrid that modifies kernel table counters and reports > > synchronously. That could be a special case call in > > nf_tables_dump_obj() and nf_tables_getobj(). Will that cause a storm > > per commit? > > No, since they can't be part of a commit (they don't implement the > 'call_batch' function). Ok, good, so they should be safe (but still needs the gfp param to audit_log_nfcfg() for atomic alloc in that obj reset callback). > I'm not sure GETOBJ_RESET should be reported in the first place: > RESET only affects expr internal state, and that state changes all the time > anyway in response to network traffic. We report audit lost messages reset as a config change since it affects the view that an admin has about a system. An unaccounted for reset could mislead an administrator into thinking things are alright when some messages were lost and there was nothing to show for it. I could see similar situations with network entity counters. - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
