On 26.07.2011 01:45, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Thursday 2011-07-21 11:14, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> On 21.07.2011 10:43, Ed W wrote: >>> On 21/07/2011 07:16, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>> It's expected behaviour since ICMP packets related to an existing >>>> connection don't refresh the connection and are not accounted. >>>> I don't have an opinion on whether they should be accounted, I >>>> guess you could argue both ways. >>> >>> Thanks for the feedback. >>> >>> I guess I was hoping that conntrack could be used for accurate bandwidth >>> accounting, however, it seems to ignore this type of packet, so it's >>> count is going to deviate from a simple interface byte counter? >> >> Yes, but it's going to do that anyways since there are also packets >> which can't be tracked, invalid packets, etc. Also conntrack doesn't >> account for link layer headers and only for IPv4/v6 packets. > > While toying around, I found that if an skb is classified as RELATED, > skb->nfct->master always points to skb->nfct itself. Is that a bug > or something? Should it not point to the origin CT? For RELATED connections expected by a helper? That would be wrong, it should point to the real master. -- 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
