netdev - [PATCH 11/15] ipvs: address family of LBLC entry depends on svc family

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: <1410999961-7975-12-git-send-email-horms@verge.net.au>
Date:	Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:25:57 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>,
	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, Alex Gartrell <agartrell@...com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Subject: [PATCH 11/15] ipvs: address family of LBLC entry depends on svc family

From: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>

The LBLC entries should use svc->af, not dest->af.
Needed to support svc->af != dest->af.

Signed-off-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Signed-off-by: Alex Gartrell <agartrell@...com>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
---
 net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblc.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblc.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblc.c
index 547ff33..127f140 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblc.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblc.c
@@ -199,11 +199,11 @@ ip_vs_lblc_get(int af, struct ip_vs_lblc_table *tbl,
  */
 static inline struct ip_vs_lblc_entry *
 ip_vs_lblc_new(struct ip_vs_lblc_table *tbl, const union nf_inet_addr *daddr,
-	       struct ip_vs_dest *dest)
+	       u16 af, struct ip_vs_dest *dest)
 {
 	struct ip_vs_lblc_entry *en;
 
-	en = ip_vs_lblc_get(dest->af, tbl, daddr);
+	en = ip_vs_lblc_get(af, tbl, daddr);
 	if (en) {
 		if (en->dest == dest)
 			return en;
@@ -213,8 +213,8 @@ ip_vs_lblc_new(struct ip_vs_lblc_table *tbl, const union nf_inet_addr *daddr,
 	if (!en)
 		return NULL;
 
-	en->af = dest->af;
-	ip_vs_addr_copy(dest->af, &en->addr, daddr);
+	en->af = af;
+	ip_vs_addr_copy(af, &en->addr, daddr);
 	en->lastuse = jiffies;
 
 	ip_vs_dest_hold(dest);
@@ -521,13 +521,13 @@ ip_vs_lblc_schedule(struct ip_vs_service *svc, const struct sk_buff *skb,
 	/* If we fail to create a cache entry, we'll just use the valid dest */
 	spin_lock_bh(&svc->sched_lock);
 	if (!tbl->dead)
-		ip_vs_lblc_new(tbl, &iph->daddr, dest);
+		ip_vs_lblc_new(tbl, &iph->daddr, svc->af, dest);
 	spin_unlock_bh(&svc->sched_lock);
 
 out:
 	IP_VS_DBG_BUF(6, "LBLC: destination IP address %s --> server %s:%d\n",
 		      IP_VS_DBG_ADDR(svc->af, &iph->daddr),
-		      IP_VS_DBG_ADDR(svc->af, &dest->addr), ntohs(dest->port));
+		      IP_VS_DBG_ADDR(dest->af, &dest->addr), ntohs(dest->port));
 
 	return dest;
 }
-- 
2.0.1

--
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