Re: [PATCH nf-next 2/8] netfilter: nf_tables: reject element expiration with no timeout

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

 



On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 04:23:51PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> If element timeout is unset and set provides no default timeout, the
> element expiration is silently ignored, reject this instead to let user
> know this is unsupported.
> 
> While at it, remove unnecesary notation to read default set timeout
> under mutex.

The sentence above is a left-over from splitting patches, right?

> Fixes: 8e1102d5a159 ("netfilter: nf_tables: support timeouts larger than 23 days")
> Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> index 0fb8f8f1ef66..79ab90069b84 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> @@ -6920,6 +6920,9 @@ static int nft_add_set_elem(struct nft_ctx *ctx, struct nft_set *set,
>  	if (nla[NFTA_SET_ELEM_EXPIRATION] != NULL) {
>  		if (!(set->flags & NFT_SET_TIMEOUT))
>  			return -EINVAL;
> +		if (timeout == 0)
> +			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
>  		err = nf_msecs_to_jiffies64(nla[NFTA_SET_ELEM_EXPIRATION],
>  					    &expiration);
>  		if (err)
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 
> 
> 




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

  Powered by Linux