Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Tuesday 2010-04-13 15:33, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c >>> index f314ba4..7e10f62 100644 >>> --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c >>> +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c >>> @@ -172,8 +172,9 @@ int ip6_output(struct sk_buff *skb) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> - return NF_HOOK(NFPROTO_IPV6, NF_INET_POST_ROUTING, skb, NULL, dev, >>> - ip6_finish_output); >>> + return NF_HOOK_COND(NFPROTO_IPV6, NF_INET_POST_ROUTING, skb, NULL, dev, >>> + ip6_finish_output, >>> + !(IP6CB(skb)->flags & IPSKB_REROUTED)); >> This needs to use an IP6SKB value to avoid clashes. I've fixed it up >> as follows: > > Would merging the IPSKB and IP6SKB flags be worth it? > I don't think so, the CB is by definition private to each layer. -- 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
