On 2021-02-19 01:26, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > 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 just noticed that nft_quota_obj_eval() misses logging NFT_MSG_NEWOBJ in nf_tables_commit(), so that looks like it should be added. > - RGB - 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
