From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] netfilter: xtables: inclusion of xt_condition Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:19:40 +0300 Message-ID: <20100722191940.GA10029@x200> References: <1279807758-6876-1-git-send-email-luciano.coelho@nokia.com> <1279807758-6876-2-git-send-email-luciano.coelho@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Luciano Coelho , Netfilter Developer Mailing List , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Patrick McHardy , sameo@linux.intel.com To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:57212 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755505Ab0GVTTr (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:19:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:44:35PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Thursday 2010-07-22 16:09, Luciano Coelho wrote: > >+static int condition_mt_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par) > >+{ > >+ struct xt_condition_mtinfo *info = par->matchinfo; > >+ struct condition_variable *var; > >+ struct condition_net *cond_net = > >+ condition_pernet(current->nsproxy->net_ns); > > Cc'ing Alexey who has done the netns support. > > Alexey, you added par->net, but given Luciano just did it with > current->nsproxy->net_ns, do we really need par->net? In ->check, maybe, we can get away with current->nsproxy->net_ns. But definitely not in ->destroy(), because destruction can happen when _no_ task is in netns, so current->nsproxy->net_ns is 100% bogus. Steps to reproduce: iptables -A ... exit ->destroy hook gets netns from par->net, ->checkentry does the same for symmetry and less confusion.