On 06/06/2016 06:31 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:23:54PM -0400, Vishwanath Pai wrote: >> netfilter/nflog: nflog-range does not truncate packets >> >> The --nflog-range parameter from userspace is ignored in the kernel and >> the entire packet is sent to the userspace. The per-instance parameter >> copy_range still works, with this change --nflog-range will have >> preference over copy_range. > > I think it's reasonable to assume that --nflog-range from the rule > applies globally to any instance. > > However, per-instance copy_range has prevailed over --nflog-range > since the beginning, so I would follow a more conservative approach, > ie. remain copy_range in preference over --nflog-range. > > So I'd suggest you invert this logic. > > Let me know, thanks. > Thanks for reviewing this. I think my comment on the patch was misleading, we do give preference to copy_range and that is what we default to. --nflog-range will not override the per-instance default, the only time it would get preference is when its value is lesser than the per-instance value. If copy_range is lesser than --nflog-range then we retain copy_range. So basically what we are doing is min(copy_range, nflog-range). Just wanted to clarify this, if this is not how it's meant to be please let me know. Also, there is a bug in my patch, li->u.ulog.copy_len can be set to "0" from userspace (if --nflog-range is not specified), so we have to check for this condition before using the value. I will send a V2 of the patch based on your reply. Thanks, Vishwanath -- 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
