[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <08740476-acfb-d35a-50b7-3aee42f23bfa@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 06:19:22 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
"pablo@...filter.org" <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: "kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu" <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
"fw@...len.de" <fw@...len.de>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuznet@....inr.ac.ru" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"coreteam@...filter.org" <coreteam@...filter.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mingfangsen <mingfangsen@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net: netfilter: Fix rpfilter dropping vrf packets by
mistake
On 6/28/19 8:13 PM, linmiaohe wrote:
> You're right. Fib rules code would set FLOWI_FLAG_SKIP_NH_OIF flag. But I set
> it here for distinguish with the flags & XT_RPFILTER_LOOSE branch. Without
> this, they do the same work and maybe should be combined. I don't want to
> do that as that makes code confusing.
> Is this code snipet below ok ? If so, I would delete this flag setting.
>
> } else if (netif_is_l3_master(dev) || netif_is_l3_slave(dev)) {
> fl6.flowi6_oif = dev->ifindex;
> } else if ((flags & XT_RPFILTER_LOOSE) == 0)
> fl6.flowi6_oif = dev->ifindex;
that looks fine to me, but it is up to Pablo.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists