Subject: Re: genetlink misinterprets NEW as GET

From: Ben Pfaff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:23:57 -0800

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.