[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190502074642.ph64t7uax73xuxeo@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 09:46:42 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Cc: Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Netfilter Development Mailing list
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/31] netfilter: ctnetlink: Support L3 protocol-filter
on flush
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
> I understand your point, but this is a regression. Ignoring a field/attribute of
> a netlink message is part of the uAPI. This field exists for more than a decade
> (probably two), so you cannot just use it because nobody was using it. Just see
> all discussions about strict validation of netlink messages.
> Moreover, the conntrack tool exists also for ages and is an official tool.
FWIW I agree with Nicolas, we should restore old behaviour and flush
everything when AF_INET is given. We can add new netlink attr to
restrict this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists