Hi, On h, jan 21, 2008 at 11:58:34 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Jan 21 2008 10:11, Laszlo Attila Toth wrote: > > > > http://people.netfilter.org/hidden/tproxy/tproxy4-2.6.24-200710190050.tar.bz2 > > > In the xt_socket code, I just noticed: > > struct udphdr *hp; > hp = skb_header_pointer(skb, ip_hdrlen(skb), sizeof(_hdr), &_hdr); > > Does that mean xt_socket only receives UDP? Also, the header should always be > available so that skb_header_pointer is not necessary. > Where am I being misled? No, not just UDP but it uses only the port part of the header which has the same layout as the TCP header. It's ugly, though. (But I'm afraid this is not the only place where this appears.) The skb_header_pointer() might be unnecessary, bit I'm not quite sure about this. Where exactly do we make sure that we have at least the UDP header available? And as already mentioned, the this match depends heavily on the other parts of the tproxy patchset. In fact we'd need to create a new table to make it work for NAT-ted connections (the current tproxy patchset has a problem with SNAT), so it wouldn't be possible to use it on mangle/PREROUTING... (Do you happen to have any ideas for this new table name? I wouldn't call it tproxy but something else which tells you its place in the flowchart, like 'postnat' or something like that.) -- KOVACS Krisztian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
