[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31b9320ccad0df9119cd9a14dbc8a4ad53e5a255.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:14:31 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] netfilter: nf_tables: fib: Drop IPV6 packages if
IPv6 is disabled on boot
On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 11:58 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 01:15:58PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 07:36 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > Wouldn't fib_netdev.c have the same problem?
> > Probably, but I haven't hit this issue yet.
> >
> > > If so, might be better to place this test in both
> > > nft_fib6_eval_type and nft_fib6_eval.
> >
> > I think that is possible, and not very hard to do.
> >
> > But in my humble viewpoint, it looks like it's nft_fib_inet_eval() and
> > nft_fib_netdev_eval() have the responsibility to choose a valid
> > protocol or drop the package.
> > I am not sure if it would be a good move to transfer this
> > responsibility to nft_fib6_eval_type() and nft_fib6_eval(), so I would
> > rather add the same test to nft_fib_netdev_eval().
> >
> > Does it make sense?
>
> Please, update common code to netdev and ip6 extensions as Florian
> suggests.
>
> Thanks.
Ok then, I will send a v2 with that change.
Thanks,
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists