On 14/10/2019 12:02, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:54:33AM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
>> Edward Cree <ec...@solarflare.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2019 23:30, Florian Westphal wrote:
>>>> NF_HOOK_LIST now only works for ipv4 and ipv6, as those are the only
>>>> callers.
>>> ...
>>>> +
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> + switch (pf) {
>>>> + case NFPROTO_IPV4:
>>>> + hook_head = rcu_dereference(net->nf.hooks_ipv4[hook]);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case NFPROTO_IPV6:
>>>> + hook_head = rcu_dereference(net->nf.hooks_ipv6[hook]);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default:
>>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>>>> + break;
>>>> }
>>> Would it not make sense instead to abstract out the switch in nf_hook()
>>> into, say, an inline function that could be called from here? That
>>> would satisfy SPOT and also save updating this code if new callers of
>>> NF_HOOK_LIST are added in the future.
>> Its a matter of taste I guess. I don't really like having all these
>> inline wrappers for wrappers wrapped in wrappers.
>>
>> Pablo, its up to you. I could add __nf_hook_get_hook_head() or similar
>> and use that instead of open-coding.
> I'm fine with your approach, Florian. If new callers are added, this
> can be done later on.
Fine, in that case feel free to add my
Acked-by: Edward Cree <ec...@solarflare.com>
The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for
the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Unless you are an
addressee (or authorized to receive for an addressee), you may not use, copy or
disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message.
The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is
strictly prohibited.
