On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:40:19PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_l3proto_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_l3proto_ipv4.c > > > ick_inndex f8aad03d674b..6f5e8d01b876 100644 > > > --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_l3proto_ipv4.c > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_l3proto_ipv4.c > > > @@ -255,11 +255,6 @@ nf_nat_ipv4_fn(void *priv, struct sk_buff *skb, > > > /* maniptype == SRC for postrouting. */ > > > enum nf_nat_manip_type maniptype = HOOK2MANIP(state->hook); > > > > > > - /* We never see fragments: conntrack defrags on pre-routing > > > - * and local-out, and nf_nat_out protects post-routing. > > > - */ > > > - NF_CT_ASSERT(!ip_is_fragment(ip_hdr(skb))); > > > - > > We could make this a explicit test+return but that seems weird too, > we would track the first fragment but would not nat. Right, that test+return just for this is weird. > However, changing test to if (iph->frag_off) return -NF_ACCEPT seems > wrong too because we have enough info to track. OTOH, this only happens > with HDRINCL+raw socket so perhaps we shouldn't care about this and > just change ipv4 l3 tracker to ignore all packets w. iph->frag_off set. Florian, unless you rise your hand, I'm going to take this patch so we at least fix splats here. I still have the impression that this setsockopt() option and its interaction with netfilter is broken at many levels. -- 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
