This patch is to avoid generating incorrect conntrack entry
In a certain use case of conntrack flow that if flow included
ct(commit, nat) action, but no detail action/direction specified,
CT will generate incorrect conntrack entry.
For example, add below flow:
ip,priority=500,in_port=1,ct_state=-trk actions=ct(table=1,nat)'
ip,priority=500,in_port=2,ct_state=-trk actions=ct(table=1,nat)'
table=1,in_port=1,ip,ct_state=+trk+new actions=ct*(commit,nat)*,2
table=1,in_port=1,ip,ct_state=-new+trk+est actions=2
table=1,in_port=2,ip,ct_state=-new+trk+est actions=1
start traffic from 192.168.2.2 to 192.168.2.7
ovs dpdk datpath generate CT entry as below:
icmp,orig=(src=192.168.2.2,dst=192.168.2.7,id=17038,type=8,code=0),
reply=(src=*0.0.0.0*,dst=192.168.2.2,id=17038,type=0,code=0)
reply key src 0.0.0.0 is generated not correct by "nat_get_unique_tuple".
but ovs kernel datapath will generate correct ct entry as below:
icmp,orig=(src=192.168.2.2,dst=192.168.2.7,id=17038,type=8,code=0),
reply=(src=192.168.2.7,dst=192.168.2.2,id=17038,type=0,code=0)

To compatible with this use case of flow, and also be consistent with
kernel datapath's behavior, this patch treat this nat without action
specified as not nat, and don't do "nat_get_unique_tuple" and malloc
a nat_conn that is attached to nc.

Signed-off-by: Zhong Zhong <[email protected]>

---
 lib/conntrack.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/conntrack.c b/lib/conntrack.c
index 47a443f..581b62b 100644
--- a/lib/conntrack.c
+++ b/lib/conntrack.c
@@ -942,7 +942,7 @@ conn_not_found(struct conntrack *ct, struct dp_packet
*pkt,
             nc->parent_key = alg_exp->parent_key;
         }
- if (nat_action_info) {
+ if (nat_action_info && nat_action_info->nat_action) {
             nc->nat_action = nat_action_info->nat_action;
             if (alg_exp) {
--

-- 
Best Regards

Zhong, Zhong
Email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to