On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:58:52AM +0800, fgao@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Gao Feng <fgao@xxxxxxxxxx> > > When memory is exhausted, nf_ct_nat_ext_add may return NULL. Then > nf_nat_ipv4_fn and nf_nat_ipv6_fn would return NF_ACCEPT in this > case. > So we need add the NULL check when invoke nfct_nat in these two > functions. > > Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c | 2 ++ > net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv6.c | 6 +++++- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c > index ea91058..353ca0c 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c > @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@ > > ct = nf_ct_get(skb, &ctinfo); > nat = nfct_nat(ct); > + if (!nat) > + return NF_ACCEPT; The masquerade target is only called from the nat table. If you look at nf_nat_ipv4_fn(), that is called whenever the packet enters a nat table, you can indeed check that nfct_nat() must be already there by when we call masquerade. So this is entirely unnecessary. -- 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
