Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Mar 2023 21:59:45 -0700 | From | Jakub Kicinski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] connector/cn_proc: Add filtering to fix some bugs |
| |
On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 02:32:13 +0000 Anjali Kulkarni wrote: > 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 > ANJALI> otherwise and I saw a check for protocol NETLINK_GENERIC just > ANJALI> below it, so used it for connector as well. There is no > ANJALI> release or free callback in the netlink_sock. Is it ok to add > ANJALI> it? There was another bug (for which I have not yet sent a > ANJALI> patch) in which, we need to decrement > ANJALI> proc_event_num_listeners, when client exits without calling > ANJALI> IGNORE, else that count again gets out of status of actual no > ANJALI> 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.
Please fix your email setup, it's really hard to read your replies.
There is an unbind callback, and a notifier. Can neither of those be made to work? ->sk_user_data is not a great choice of a field, either, does any other netlink family use it this way? Adding a new field for family use to struct netlink_sock may be better.
| |