Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Aaron Conole <aconole@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> When CONFIG_NETFILTER_INGRESS is unset (or no), we need to handle
>> the request for registration properly by dropping the hook. This
>> releases the entry during the set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> net/netfilter/core.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/netfilter/core.c b/net/netfilter/core.c
>> index e58e420..1d0a4c9 100644
>> --- a/net/netfilter/core.c
>> +++ b/net/netfilter/core.c
>> @@ -90,10 +90,14 @@ static void nf_set_hooks_head(struct net *net, const struct nf_hook_ops *reg,
>> {
>> switch (reg->pf) {
>> case NFPROTO_NETDEV:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NETFILTER_INGRESS
>> /* We already checked in nf_register_net_hook() that this is
>> * used from ingress.
>> */
>> rcu_assign_pointer(reg->dev->nf_hooks_ingress, entry);
>> +#else
>> + kfree(entry);
>> +#endif
>> break;
>
> This looks dodgy (its correct though).
>
> I'd propose to add a test to nf_register_net_hook()
> to bail with -EOPNOSTUPP instead of this "#else kfree()" if we get
> NFPROTO_NETDEV pf with CONFIG_NETFILTER_INGRESS=n build instead.
Okay, I'll spin a new version.
Thanks for the review, Florian!
-Aaron
--
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
