On Wednesday, February 08, 2012 01:27:43 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 03:41:42PM +0100, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
[snip]
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_NF_NAT)
> > + if (ct && test_bit(IP_CT_IS_REPLY, &ct->status)) {
> > + struct nf_conntrack_tuple *otuple;
> > +
> > + otuple = &ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].tuple;
> > + /*
> > + * On the "return flow", to get the original address
> > + */
> > + if ((ct->status & IPS_DST_NAT) &&
> > + (info->flags & XT_HMARK_USE_DNAT)) {
> > + addr1 = (__force u32) otuple->dst.u3.in.s_addr;
> > + dnatport = otuple->dst.u.udp.port;
> > + }
> > + if ((ct->status & IPS_SRC_NAT) &&
> > + (info->flags & XT_HMARK_USE_SNAT)) {
> > + addr2 = (__force u32) otuple->src.u3.in.s_addr;
> > + snatport = otuple->src.u.udp.port;
> > + }
>
> You can make this much more simple.
>
> Allow the user to tell your HMARK target to use the conntrack
> information instead.
>
> My opinion is that the user must have total control on the target
> behaviour through the configuration options. The number of internal
> by-default decisions have to be kept up to the minimum, otherwise
> the behaviour of the target may seem obscure.
>
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > + /* user space tool ensures that prmask is zero when method is L3*/
While dealing with fragmentation in ipvs, an idea run into my head...
why not take care of fragments from nfct_reasm in L3_4 mode ?
OK it might be an obscure behaviour but on the other hand
people expect that fragments is handled by netfilter...
/Hans
--
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
