Subject: Re: genetlink misinterprets NEW as GET

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:31:17 +0100

On 06/01/11 18:23, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> On 04/01/11 03:14, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> 	/* Modifiers to GET request */
>>> 	#define NLM_F_ROOT      0x100
>>> 	#define NLM_F_MATCH     0x200
>>> 	#define NLM_F_ATOMIC    0x400
>>> 	#define NLM_F_DUMP      (NLM_F_ROOT|NLM_F_MATCH)
> [...]
>>> [N.B.: I am also wondering whether
>>> 	(nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_DUMP) == NLM_F_DUMP
>>> may have been desired, because NLM_F_DUMP is composed of two bits.]
>>
>> Someone may include NLM_F_ATOMIC to a dump operation, in that case the
>> checking that you propose is not valid.
> 
> Are you saying that NLM_F_MATCH and NLM_F_ATOMIC are mutually
> exclusive, and that NLM_F_ROOT|NLM_F_ATOMIC would also signal a
> dump operation?  Otherwise the test that Jan proposes looks valid
> to me.

Indeed, Jan's test is fine to fix this. Please, send a patch to Davem asap.