Am 14.02.2011 17:52, schrieb Patrick McHardy:
> Am 14.02.2011 17:48, schrieb Eric Dumazet:
>> I am not sure, but I guess nf_reinject() needs a fix too ;)
>
> I agree. That one looks uglier though, I guess we'll have to
> iterate through all hooks to note the previous one.
How about this? Unfortunately I don't think we can avoid
iterating through all hooks without violating RCU rules.
diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_queue.c b/net/netfilter/nf_queue.c
index 74aebed..834bb07 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_queue.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_queue.c
@@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ int nf_queue(struct sk_buff *skb,
void nf_reinject(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, unsigned int verdict)
{
struct sk_buff *skb = entry->skb;
+ struct nf_hook_ops *i, *prev;
struct list_head *elem = &entry->elem->list;
const struct nf_afinfo *afinfo;
@@ -244,8 +245,21 @@ void nf_reinject(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, unsigned
int verdict)
/* Continue traversal iff userspace said ok... */
if (verdict == NF_REPEAT) {
- elem = elem->prev;
- verdict = NF_ACCEPT;
+ prev = NULL;
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(i, &nf_hooks[entry->pf][entry->hook],
+ list) {
+ if (&i->list == elem)
+ break;
+ prev = i;
+ }
+
+ if (prev == NULL ||
+ &i->list == &nf_hooks[entry->pf][entry->hook])
+ verdict = NF_DROP;
+ else {
+ elem = &prev->list;
+ verdict = NF_ACCEPT;
+ }
}
if (verdict == NF_ACCEPT) {
