> -----Original Message----- > From: Pablo Neira Ayuso [mailto:pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 2:58 PM > To: Harout Hedeshian > Cc: netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Lorenzo Colitti' > Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xt_socket: add > XT_SOCKET_MATCHSOCKMARK flag and mark fields > > > > > Actually, on second thought, I'm not so sure. This socket lookup is > > happening as part of a match operation in xt_socket.c. > > From x_tables.h, I can see that match functions are not supposed to > > modify the skb: > > > > struct xt_match{ > > ... > > bool (*match)(const struct sk_buff *skb, struct xt_action_param *); > > > > In that case, would this even be valid? > > -m socket --transparent --restore-skmark > > > > Keeping in mind --restore-skmark is happening as part of -m socket > > > > I would think we would need a whole new target to handle something > > like > > this: > > iptables -t mangle -I PREROUTING -m socket --transparent --no-wildcard > > -j SOCKET --restore-skmark > > > > Since the target invocation would be separate, we would need a second > > socket lookup? Seems perhaps a little overkill... > > Yes, it's simply overkill to add a new target to add this. > > So just cast it: Yuck... > struct sk_buff *pskb = (struct sk_buff *)skb; > > iptables matches were originally design not to modify anything, but it > can lead us to situations like this. That's one of the reasons why we > have no distinction between matches and targets in nftables anymore. That makes sense. > Thanks. These 2 MATCHSOCKMARK patches should be replaced with: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xt_socket: add XT_SOCKET_RESTORESKMARK flag [PATCH iptables] xt_socket: add --restore-skmark option Thanks, Harout -- 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
