Re: [RFC nf-next PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_proto_tcp: propagate IP_CT_TCP_FLAG_BE_LIBERAL

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



However under testing, in practice is not. As covered in the bug.

Fields: CTA_IP_V4_DST, CTA_PROTOINFO_TCP_FLAGS_ORIGINAL &
CTA_PROTOINFO_TCP_FLAGS_REPLY
Result: "**.**.56.135: 10 3"

It's only being set on one side. I believe this is because the reply
side flags are being set/initialised after the fact (i.e where they
are initialised in that function for incoming connections would do it
too).


On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
<arturo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (please keep the netfilter-devel list in CC)
>
> On 21 October 2016 at 09:18, Mathew Heard <mat999@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> That's been covered already.
>>
>> The problem with it is that only the ORIG side of the connection ends
>> up set. REPLY does not.
>>
>> I don't know the fundamental reason why this occurs, only the effect.
>>
>
> In that same function, in conntrackd:
>  http://git.netfilter.org/conntrack-tools/tree/src/netlink.c#n256
>
> we set the same flags in both original and reply directions:
>
> nfct_set_attr_u8(ct, ATTR_TCP_FLAGS_ORIG, flags);
> nfct_set_attr_u8(ct, ATTR_TCP_MASK_ORIG, flags);
> nfct_set_attr_u8(ct, ATTR_TCP_FLAGS_REPL, flags);
> nfct_set_attr_u8(ct, ATTR_TCP_MASK_REPL, flags);
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux