From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next 3/3] netfilter: nf_tables: add generation mask to set objects Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:23:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20150804172352.GA3936@salvia> References: <1438679128-4146-1-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> <1438679128-4146-3-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> <20150804103813.GA12016@acer.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:57113 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752469AbbHDRRz (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:17:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150804103813.GA12016@acer.localdomain> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:38:13PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > On 04.08, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > Use the generation mask approach to obtain a consistent list of set objects > > from netlink dump commands. > > > > Get rid of the internal NFT_SET_INACTIVE flag. > > In this case I don't see how deletion and creation in the same > batch will work at all since we don't check any active bits in > nf_tables_newset(). Right, the update of nf_tables_set_lookup() is missing. > We also have the problem that f.i. delset checks for activeness > in the current instead of the next generation. I guess you refer to the same problem I'm discussing in the other thread, right? As I said, this checking for add+delete in the same batch.