netdev - Re: [PATCH 20/31] netns ct: NOTRACK in netns

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0807211901220.21244@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:05:10 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
cc:	kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvz.org, xemul@...nvz.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, dlezcano@...ibm.com, benjamin.thery@...l.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/31] netns ct: NOTRACK in netns


On Monday 2008-07-21 18:50, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:

>Make untracked conntrack per-netns. Compare conntracks with untracked
>one in relevant netns.
>
>The following code may looks funny (sort-of self-referential):
>
>	if (ct == ct->ct_net->ct.untracked)
>		...

The untracked conntrack is a singleton as I see it, as such it
should not be netnsed.


>+++ b/net/netfilter/xt_NOTRACK.c
>@@ -25,7 +26,7 @@ notrack_tg(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct net_device *in,
> 	   If there is a real ct entry correspondig to this packet,
> 	   it'll hang aroun till timing out. We don't deal with it
> 	   for performance reasons. JK */
>-	skb->nfct = &nf_conntrack_untracked.ct_general;
>+	skb->nfct = &dev_net(in ? in : out)->ct.untracked.ct_general;

You can just use 'in ? : out'.

>+++ b/net/netfilter/xt_state.c
>@@ -30,7 +31,7 @@ state_mt(const struct sk_buff *skb, const struct net_device *in,
> 	enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo;
> 	unsigned int statebit;
> 
>-	if (nf_ct_is_untracked(skb))
>+	if (nf_ct_is_untracked(dev_net(in ? in : out), skb))

Does this even do the right thing? Given the forward path, where
both in!=NULL and out!=NULL, why should it specifically be 'in'
that is selected?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html