| Re: [PATCH] iptables 32bit compat layer [message #2325 is a reply to message #2163] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 09:28   |
Patrick McHardy
Messages: 107
Registered: March 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dmitry Mishin wrote:
> This patch 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.
>
> Patch is for current net-2.6.17 with addition of move of ipt_entry_{match|
> target} definitions to xt_entry_{match|target}.
Thanks, this looks good. Two small issues so far:
> diff --git a/net/compat.c b/net/compat.c
> index 13177a1..6a7028e 100644
> --- a/net/compat.c
> +++ b/net/compat.c
> @@ -476,8 +476,7 @@ asmlinkage long compat_sys_setsockopt(in
> int err;
> struct socket *sock;
>
> - /* SO_SET_REPLACE seems to be the same in all levels */
> - if (optname == IPT_SO_SET_REPLACE)
> + if (level == SOL_IPV6 && optname == IPT_SO_SET_REPLACE)
> return do_netfilter_replace(fd, level, optname,
> optval, optlen);
I don't understand the reason for this change. If its not a mistake,
it would make more sense to check for IP6T_SO_SET_REPLACE I guess ..
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> +void xt_compat_lock(int af)
> +{
> + down(&xt[af].compat_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_compat_lock);
> +
> +void xt_compat_unlock(int af)
> +{
> + up(&xt[af].compat_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_compat_unlock);
> +#endif
Won't a seperate compat-mutex introduce races between compat- and
non-compat users? BTW, the up/down calls have been replaced by the
new mutex API in Linus' tree, please resend the patch against the
current tree.
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
