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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:08:43 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
CC:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, 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

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Monday 2008-07-21 18:50, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> 
>> +++ 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?

It doesn't matter, the namespace during forwaring is always
equal for the input and output devices.
--
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