Am 04.01.2012 18:55, schrieb Bart De Schuymer: > Op 3/01/2012 21:29, Richard Weinberger schreef: >> Am 03.01.2012 21:15, schrieb Bart De Schuymer: >>> The documentation is probably not explicit enough, but I would keep the >>> behavior as it is now. Setting bridge-nf-call-iptables to 0 makes >>> iptables behave as if bridge-netfilter was not enabled at compilation. >>> Anyway, your patch is almost certainly flawed since the fact that >>> skb->nf_bridge can be NULL is used as part of the logic in >>> br_netfilter.c: it indicates that bridge-nf-call-iptables was 0 when the >>> packet was first processed by bridge-netfilter and should therefore not >>> be given to iptables in any other netfilter hook. >> Thanks for the explanation! >> >> Wouldn't it make sense to check for bridge-nf-call-iptables in >> xt_physdev? >> So that the user gets warned that his iptables rule will never match... > > We don't want to introduce module dependencies between the bridge module > and the iptables physdev match. CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_PHYSDEV depends anyway on CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER... > We could add a message to the syslog whenever these proc settings are > changed (in br_netfilter.c::brnf_sysctl_call_tables()). > Let's export brnf_call_iptables and brnf_call_ip6tables, such that physdev_mt_check() can notify the user that his iptables rule will have no effect. Thanks, //richard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
