On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:38:20PM +0800, gfree.wind@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> +static struct nf_ct_nat_helper pptp_nat = {
> + .name = "pptp_nat",
Why all these with "xyz_nat" names?
This is going to break ctnetlink, as this is the name that identifies
the NAT helper to be used.
> + .expectfn = pptp_expectfn,
> +};
> +
> static void pptp_expectfn(struct nf_conn *ct,
> struct nf_conntrack_expect *exp)
> {
> @@ -221,7 +229,7 @@ static int exp_gre(struct nf_conn *ct, __be16 callid, __be16 peer_callid)
> &ct->tuplehash[dir].tuple.src.u3,
> &ct->tuplehash[dir].tuple.dst.u3,
> IPPROTO_GRE, &peer_callid, &callid);
> - exp_orig->expectfn = pptp_expectfn;
> + exp_orig->nat_helper = &pptp_nat;
>
> /* reply direction, PAC->PNS */
> dir = IP_CT_DIR_REPLY;
> @@ -230,7 +238,7 @@ static int exp_gre(struct nf_conn *ct, __be16 callid, __be16 peer_callid)
> &ct->tuplehash[dir].tuple.src.u3,
> &ct->tuplehash[dir].tuple.dst.u3,
> IPPROTO_GRE, &callid, &peer_callid);
> - exp_reply->expectfn = pptp_expectfn;
> + exp_reply->nat_helper = &pptp_nat;
Why do we need to attach nat_helper instead of expectfn? I would
prefer we do not.
--
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
