On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:42:39PM +0800, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <[email protected]>
> 
> When something failed in nf_tables_table_enable, it would unregister
> the chains. But the rollback codes are same as nf_tables_table_disable
> almostly, except there is one counter check.
> Now create one wrapper function to eliminate the duplicated codes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <[email protected]>
> ---
>  net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c | 47 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> index a019a87..28a0bd7 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> @@ -576,6 +576,27 @@ static int nf_tables_gettable(struct net *net, struct 
> sock *nlsk,
>       return err;
>  }
>  
> +static void _nf_tables_table_disable(struct net *net,
> +                                  const struct nft_af_info *afi,
> +                                  struct nft_table *table,
> +                                  u32 cnt)
> +{
> +     struct nft_chain *chain;
> +
> +     list_for_each_entry(chain, &table->chains, list) {
> +             if (!nft_is_active_next(net, chain))
> +                     continue;
> +             if (!(chain->flags & NFT_BASE_CHAIN))
> +                     continue;
> +
> +             if (cnt-- == 0)
> +                     break;
> +
> +             nf_unregister_net_hooks(net, nft_base_chain(chain)->ops,
> +                                     afi->nops);
> +     }
> +}
> +
>  static int nf_tables_table_enable(struct net *net,
>                                 const struct nft_af_info *afi,
>                                 struct nft_table *table)
> @@ -598,18 +619,8 @@ static int nf_tables_table_enable(struct net *net,
>       }
>       return 0;
>  err:
> -     list_for_each_entry(chain, &table->chains, list) {
> -             if (!nft_is_active_next(net, chain))
> -                     continue;
> -             if (!(chain->flags & NFT_BASE_CHAIN))
> -                     continue;
> -
> -             if (i-- <= 0)
> -                     break;
> -
> -             nf_unregister_net_hooks(net, nft_base_chain(chain)->ops,
> -                                     afi->nops);
> -     }
> +     if (i)
> +             _nf_tables_table_disable(net, afi, table, i);
>       return err;
>  }
>  
> @@ -617,17 +628,7 @@ static void nf_tables_table_disable(struct net *net,
>                                   const struct nft_af_info *afi,
>                                   struct nft_table *table)
>  {
> -     struct nft_chain *chain;
> -
> -     list_for_each_entry(chain, &table->chains, list) {
> -             if (!nft_is_active_next(net, chain))
> -                     continue;
> -             if (!(chain->flags & NFT_BASE_CHAIN))
> -                     continue;
> -
> -             nf_unregister_net_hooks(net, nft_base_chain(chain)->ops,
> -                                     afi->nops);
> -     }
> +     _nf_tables_table_disable(net, afi, table, U32_MAX);
                                                  ^^^^^^^
While I think it's good to consolidate code, I don't like this.

Probably better something like this?

+static void nft_table_disable(struct net *net,
+                              const struct nft_af_info *afi,
+                              struct nft_table *table, int cnt)
+{
+       struct nft_chain *chain;
+
+       list_for_each_entry(chain, &table->chains, list) {
+               if (!nft_is_active_next(net, chain))
+                       continue;
+               if (!(chain->flags & NFT_BASE_CHAIN))
+                       continue;
+
+               nf_unregister_net_hooks(net, nft_base_chain(chain)->ops,
+                                       afi->nops);
+               if (cnt && --cnt == 0)
+                       break;
+
+       }
+}

So you call:

        nft_table_disable(net, afi, table, 0);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to