On top of Eric's comments.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:22:45AM +0800, f...@ikuai8.com wrote:
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_seqadj.c
> b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_seqadj.c
> index dff0f0c..3bd9c7e 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_seqadj.c
> +++
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:22 +0800, f...@ikuai8.com wrote:
> From: Gao Feng
>
> It is valid that the TCP RST packet which does not set ack flag, and bytes
> of ack number are zero. But current seqadj codes would adjust the "0" ack
> to invalid ack number. Actually seqadj need to
From: Gao Feng
It is valid that the TCP RST packet which does not set ack flag, and bytes
of ack number are zero. But current seqadj codes would adjust the "0" ack
to invalid ack number. Actually seqadj need to check the ack flag before
adjust it for these RST packets.
The