Re: [PATCH ghak124 v3] audit: log nftables configuration change events
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> If they appear in a batch tehy will be ignored, if the batch
consists of
> such non-modifying ops only then nf_tables_commit() returns early
> because the transaction list is empty (nothing to do/change).
Ok, one little inconvenient question: what about GETOBJ_RESET? That
looks like a hybrid that modifies kernel table counters and reports
synchronously. That could be a special case call in
nf_tables_dump_obj() and nf_tables_getobj(). Will that cause a storm
per commit?
No, since they can't be part of a commit (they don't implement the
'call_batch' function).
I'm not sure GETOBJ_RESET should be reported in the first place:
RESET only affects expr internal state, and that state changes all the time
anyway in response to network traffic.