[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:53:24 +0900
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc: lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Malcolm Turnbull <malcolm@...dbalancer.org>,
Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>,
Julius Volz <julius.volz@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hannes Eder <heder@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2.3 3/4] IPVS: make FTP work with full NAT support
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:43:44PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Simon Horman wrote:
> >@@ -219,19 +358,23 @@ static int ip_vs_ftp_out(struct ip_vs_ap
> > buf_len = strlen(buf);
> >+ ct = nf_ct_get(skb, &ctinfo);
> >+ ret = nf_nat_mangle_tcp_packet(skb,
> >+ ct,
> >+ ctinfo,
> >+ start-data,
> >+ end-start,
> >+ buf,
> >+ buf_len);
> >+
> >+ if (ct && ct != &nf_conntrack_untracked)
> This does not make sense, you're already using the conntrack above
> in the call to nf_nat_mangle_tcp_packet(), so the check should
> probably happen before that. You also should be checking the
> return value of nf_nat_mangle_tcp_packet() before setting up the
> expectation.
>
> >+ ip_vs_expect_related(skb, ct, n_cp,
> >+ IPPROTO_TCP, NULL, 0);
Good point. Is this better?
ct = nf_ct_get(skb, &ctinfo);
if (ct && !nf_ct_is_untracked()) {
ret = nf_nat_mangle_tcp_packet(skb, ct, ctinfo,
start-data, end-start,
buf, buf_len);
if (ret)
ip_vs_expect_related(skb, ct, n_cp,
IPPROTO_TCP, NULL, 0);
}
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists