Thomas Jarosch wrote: > On Friday, 19. March 2010 16:41:49 you wrote: > >>> Maybe this is related to the xt_recent >>> proc interface creating the entry >>> (with a zero hit count)? >>> >> Mhh, looking at that patch again, I think it should actually do: >> >> if (!info->hit_count || ++hits >= info->hit_count) >> ... >> >> since a hit_count of 0 implies that the user just wants to check for the >> presence of the entry. Thomas, could you give that a try? >> > > The new code works. Isn't that almost the same as reverting > the original patch? info->hit_count == 0 will match again. > > So we could just go back to > > "if (++hits >= info->hit_count)" > > Or am I missing something? > > Clearly your new version is more readable about the intent. Thomas, before I send this upstream with a Tested-by tag in your name, could you please confirm that this is the change you've actually tested? Thanks.
commit ef1691504c83ba3eb636c0cfd3ed33f7a6d0b4ee Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon Mar 22 18:25:20 2010 +0100 netfilter: xt_recent: fix regression in rules using a zero hit_count Commit 8ccb92ad (netfilter: xt_recent: fix false match) fixed supposedly false matches in rules using a zero hit_count. As it turns out there is nothing false about these matches and people are actually using entries with a hit_count of zero to make rules dependant on addresses inserted manually through /proc. Since this slipped past the eyes of three reviewers, instead of reverting the commit in question, this patch explicitly checks for a hit_count of zero to make the intentions more clear. Reported-by: Thomas Jarosch <thomas.jarosch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Thomas Jarosch <thomas.jarosch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_recent.c b/net/netfilter/xt_recent.c index 7073dbb..971d172 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/xt_recent.c +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_recent.c @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ recent_mt(const struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_match_param *par) for (i = 0; i < e->nstamps; i++) { if (info->seconds && time_after(time, e->stamps[i])) continue; - if (info->hit_count && ++hits >= info->hit_count) { + if (!info->hit_count || ++hits >= info->hit_count) { ret = !ret; break; }