Messages in this thread | | | From | Anjali Kulkarni <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] connector/cn_proc: Add filtering to fix some bugs | Date | Tue, 14 Mar 2023 02:32:13 +0000 |
| |
> -int cn_netlink_send_mult(struct cn_msg *msg, u16 len, u32 portid, u32 group, gfp_t gfp_mask); > +int cn_netlink_send_mult(struct cn_msg *msg, u16 len, u32 portid, > + u32 group, gfp_t gfp_mask, > + int (*filter)(struct sock *dsk, struct sk_buff *skb, > + void *data), > + void *filter_data);
kdoc needs to be extended ANJALI> Thanks, will update in next revision.
> - > + if (sk->sk_protocol == NETLINK_CONNECTOR) { > + if (test_bit(CN_IDX_PROC - 1, nlk->groups)) { > + kfree(sk->sk_user_data); > + sk->sk_user_data = NULL; > + } > + } > for (i = 0; i < nlk->ngroups; i++) > if (test_bit(i, nlk->groups)) > nlk->netlink_unbind(sock_net(sk), i + 1);
This is clearly a layering violation, right? Please don't add "if (family_x)" to the core netlink code. ANJALI> Yes, it is, but there does not seem a very clean way to do it otherwise and I saw a check for protocol NETLINK_GENERIC just below it, so used it for connector as well. There is no release or free callback in the netlink_sock. Is it ok to add it? There was another bug (for which I have not yet sent a patch) in which, we need to decrement proc_event_num_listeners, when client exits without calling IGNORE, else that count again gets out of status of actual no of listeners. The other option is to add a flag in netlink_sock, something like NETLINK_F_SK_USER_DATA_FREE, which will free the sk_user_data, if this flag is set. But it does not solve the above scenario. .
| |