From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Mishin Dmitry <dim@openvz.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
akpm@osdl.org, devel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iptables 32bit compat layer
Date: 20 Feb 2006 22:23:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <p73slqd4tde.fsf@verdi.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200602201110.39092.dim@openvz.org>
Mishin Dmitry <dim@openvz.org> writes:
> Hello,
>
> This patch set extends current iptables compatibility layer in order to get
> 32bit iptables to work on 64bit kernel. Current layer is insufficient
> due to alignment checks both in kernel and user space tools.
>
> This patch introduces base compatibility interface for other ip_tables modules
Nice. But some issues with the implementation
+#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
+#define is_current_32bits() (current_thread_info()->flags & _TIF_IA32)
This should be is_compat_task(). And we don't do such ifdefs
in generic code. And what you actually need here is a
is_compat_task_with_funny_u64_alignment() (better name sought)
So I would suggest you add macros for that to the ia64 and x86-64
asm/compat.hs and perhaps a ARCH_HAS_FUNNY_U64_ALIGNMENT #define in there.
+ ret = 0;
+ switch (convert) {
+ case COMPAT_TO_USER:
+ pt = (struct ipt_entry_target *)target;
etc. that looks ugly. why can't you just define different functions
for that? We don't really need in kernel ioctl
+#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
+ down(&compat_ipt_mutex);
+#endif
Why does it need an own lock?
Overall the implementation looks very complicated. Are you sure
it wasn't possible to do this simpler?
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-20 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-20 8:10 [PATCH 1/2] iptables 32bit compat layer Mishin Dmitry
2006-02-20 8:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] " Mishin Dmitry
2006-02-20 8:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] " David S. Miller
2006-02-20 15:55 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-02-21 9:04 ` [Devel] " Dmitry Mishin
2006-02-21 11:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-03-07 14:07 ` {get|set}sockopt " Dmitry Mishin
2006-03-07 15:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-03-09 10:23 ` Dmitry Mishin
2006-03-09 23:29 ` David S. Miller
2006-03-10 11:21 ` [PATCH] {get|set}sockopt compatibility layer Dmitry Mishin
2006-03-10 11:34 ` David S. Miller
2006-02-20 21:23 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2006-02-21 9:24 ` [Devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] iptables 32bit compat layer Dmitry Mishin
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=p73slqd4tde.fsf@verdi.suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=dim@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox