[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cef929f9a14f462f9f7d3fa475f84e76@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:13:59 +0000
From: linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.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: 答复: [PATCH v4] net: netfilter: Fix rpfilter dropping vrf packets by mistake
On 6/29/19 20:20 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> 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.
@David Ahern Many thanks for your valuable advice.
@ Pablo Hi, could you please tell me if this code snipet is ok?
If not, which code would you prefer? It's very nice of you to
figure it out for me. Thanks a lot.
Have a nice day.
Best wishes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists