[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131018113555.GK2596@neomailbox.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:35:55 +0200
From: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...hcoding.com>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...n-mesh.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bridge: clean the nf_bridge status when forwarding
the skb
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:10:41PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 01:37:35PM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:28:57AM -0700, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * br_netfilter_skb_free - clean the NF bridge data in an skb
> > > > + * @skb: the skb which the data to free belongs to
> > > > + */
> > > > +void br_netfilter_skb_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > +{
> > > > + nf_bridge_put(skb->nf_bridge);
> > > > + skb->nf_bridge = NULL;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > This should be nf_reset.
> >
> > You think I should directly use nf_reset instead of this function?
> >
> > I see that nf_reset() cleans up the conntrack part too: does it also become
> > useless once the packet exits the bridge interface?
>
> The conntrack should not attached if it's forwarded to another netif,
> see dev_forward_skb.
>
> But I'm not sure what scenario you're trying to handle with this
> change, if you could please elaborate.
This is a sample scenario (nf bridge is on):
[eth0] ---> [br0] ---> [bat0] ---> [br1]
where the relation '[a] ---> [b]' means 'a is enslaved in b' (bat0 is a
batman-adv virtual interface..in this situation it should not matter: it
just removs an header from an incoming skb and delivers it).
The problem I was having was due to an skb entering br0 first and br1 later.
When reaching br1 skb->nf_bridge was != NULL because of the previous processing
in br0.
To clarify, the packet arriving on eth0 is 'delivered' to br0. It is not
forwarded to another port of the bridge. Therefore I am not sure that we should
clean the conntrack part too.
>
> Perhaps your fix is more conservative to avoid breaking strange setups
> that have been relying on this behaviour. I know of people deploying
> strange configurations using netfilter bridge.
>
could be.
Cheers,
--
Antonio Quartulli
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists