On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Jozsef Kadlecsik <kad...@blackhole.kfki.hu> wrote:
> > > > > --- a/net/netfilter/core.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/netfilter/core.c
> > > > > @@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ void nf_ct_attach(struct sk_buff *new, const
> > > > > struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > > {
> > > > > void (*attach)(struct sk_buff *, const struct sk_buff *);
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (skb_nfct(skb)) {
> > > > > + if (skb->nfct) {
> > > >
> > > > I guess this slipped through accidentally. No need to resent, I can
> > > > amend it here.
> > >
> > > Hmm, let me review this. I thin the skb_nfct() conversion is erroneous.
> > > (Q: If original is UNTRRACKED, should the reply packet that is being
> > > attached be UNTRACKED or INVALID?)
> >
> > If the packet is UNTRACKED, then how can there be a reply packet from
> > conntrack point of view? In my opinion it's the user responsibility to
> > handle both directions.
>
> afaics it would happen with this:
>
> -t raw -j UNTRACKED
> -t filter -j REJECT
>
> REJECT target ends up calling nf_ct_attach to associate the rst/icmp
> packet with original skb->nfct.
Ohh, I see. Yes, that should then be UNTRACKED as well. Thanks for the
clarification!
Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail : kad...@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlecsik.joz...@wigner.mta.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
