From: "Gao Feng" <gfree.wind@foxmail.com>
To: "'Liping Zhang'" <zlpnobody@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Liping Zhang'" <zlpnobody@163.com>,
"'Pablo Neira Ayuso'" <pablo@netfilter.org>,
"'Netfilter Developer Mailing List'"
<netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>, <cernekee@chromium.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH nf] netfilter: ctnetlink: make it safer when updating ct->status
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:22:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000201d2b405$3c071920$b4154b60$@foxmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAML_gOeLBvnCYrYH7JzaJKg+UJ-hm+ctKGvJRnJkfsN8EEswhg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Liping,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liping Zhang [mailto:zlpnobody@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:15 AM
> To: Gao Feng <gfree.wind@foxmail.com>
> Cc: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@163.com>; Pablo Neira Ayuso
> <pablo@netfilter.org>; Netfilter Developer Mailing List
> <netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>; cernekee@chromium.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH nf] netfilter: ctnetlink: make it safer when updating
> ct->status
>
> Hi Feng,
>
> 2017-04-13 10:42 GMT+08:00 Gao Feng <gfree.wind@foxmail.com>:
> [...]
> >> +static void
> >> +__ctnetlink_change_status(struct nf_conn *ct, unsigned long on,
> >> + unsigned long off) {
> >> + unsigned long mask;
> >> + unsigned int bit;
> >> +
> >> + for (bit = 0; bit < __IPS_MAX_BIT; bit++) {
> >> + mask = 1 << bit;
> >> + /* Ignore these unchangable bits */
> >> + if (mask & IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK)
> >> + continue;
> >
> > How about clear the bits of on and off with IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK
> > before loop.
> > Like "on &= ~ IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK";
> > Then the "if (mask & IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK)" could be removed.
>
> No, it's better to do this together, there are two invocations, it's not good to
> copy these codes twice.
You mean " on &= ~ IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK " and " off &= ~ IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK " seems duplicated?
>
> >
> > BTW, when some bits are set both of on and off, the "on" would be
> > effective, but "off" not.
>
> This won't happen, see the invocation:
> 1. __ctnetlink_change_status(ct, status, 0); 2. __ctnetlink_change_status(ct,
> status, ~status);
>
> > So I think we could use BUILD_BUG_ON to avoid it during building.
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(on&mask);
>
> Btw, this won't help, BUILD_BUG_ON is only effective on compile time, but
> "on" and "off" will be modified at the running time.
You are right.
This new function would be used frequently at running time.
Regards
Feng
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-13 3:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-12 15:56 [PATCH nf] netfilter: ctnetlink: make it safer when updating ct->status Liping Zhang
2017-04-13 2:42 ` Gao Feng
2017-04-13 3:15 ` Liping Zhang
2017-04-13 3:22 ` Gao Feng [this message]
2017-04-13 3:55 ` Liping Zhang
2017-04-13 2:43 ` Gao Feng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='000201d2b405$3c071920$b4154b60$@foxmail.com' \
--to=gfree.wind@foxmail.com \
--cc=cernekee@chromium.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=zlpnobody@163.com \
--cc=zlpnobody@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.