[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <793ce2e9b6200a033d44716749acc837aaf5e4e7.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:15:58 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] netfilter: nf_tables: fib: Drop IPV6 packages if
IPv6 is disabled on boot
On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 07:36 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Wouldn't fib_netdev.c have the same problem?
Probably, but I haven't hit this issue yet.
> If so, might be better to place this test in both
> nft_fib6_eval_type and nft_fib6_eval.
I think that is possible, and not very hard to do.
But in my humble viewpoint, it looks like it's nft_fib_inet_eval() and
nft_fib_netdev_eval() have the responsibility to choose a valid
protocol or drop the package.
I am not sure if it would be a good move to transfer this
responsibility to nft_fib6_eval_type() and nft_fib6_eval(), so I would
rather add the same test to nft_fib_netdev_eval().
Does it make sense?
Thanks for the feedback!
Leonardo Bras
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists