Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hmm, this will get messy. > > > > I only see two alternatives: > > > > - place the bitmask in the pernet structure. > > - add struct nft_expr_ctx as a container structure, which has > > nft_ctx as first member and the bitmask as second member, to > > be used for NEWRULE and NEWSETELEM instead of nft_ctx. > > Can the 'level' field be moved to this nft_expr_ctx structure? This > field is only used from the preparation phase (not in the commit > phase). > > Probably we need to rename nft_ctx to nft_trans_ctx, so it contains > the fields that are needed from the commit phase. Then, re-add a > nft_ctx again which contains nft_trans_ctx at the beginning, then the > register bitmap and the level field. Thus, any future fields only > required by preparation phase only will go in nft_ctx, and fields that > are specifically are set up from preparation phase and consumed from > commit step go in nft_trans_ctx. > > It is a bit of churn, but it is probably good to tidy up this for > future extensions? Yes, its a lot of churn, I can have a look at how intrusive this will be. Problem is that we have a bunch of helpers that take 'struct nft_ctx *', which are fed via '&trans->ctx'. I'd like to avoid 'union nf_ctx_any *' tricks...
