Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2010-04-01 15:22, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>>> Conntrack loops are prevented by using a dummy conntrack, just as >>>>> NOTRACK does. >>>> [...] >>>>> - When the cloned packets gets XFRMed or tunneled, its status switches >>>>> from "special" to "plain". Doing policy routing on them does not seem >>>>> so far-fetched. >>>> My question was about the case without conntrack. >>> Hm. Do you have any suggestion in countering a case whereby a user >>> does -I OUTPUT -j TEE without conntrack? >>> >>> Perhaps making nesting a feature that requires conntrack, such that the >>> non-CT case can't loop? >> If we drop the reentrancy thing, what should work is to prevent >> using loopback as output device and using something similar to >> the recursion counters tunnel devices used to have. > > Nah. I'm going to pick a bit from struct skbuff to indicate the > packet was teed so as to avoid that loop. That's a bad idea, we shouldn't be adding new skb members for something as peripheral as this module. What's wrong with adding a reentrancy counter? -- 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
