On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:01:55PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > No problem for iptables as priorities are fixed values defined in the > nat modules, but in nftables the priority its coming from userspace. > > Reject in case we see that such a hook would not work. > > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c > index f000d4399c7a..4ed66f1b40b5 100644 > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c > @@ -1303,6 +1303,11 @@ static int nft_chain_parse_hook(struct net *net, > } > if (!(type->hook_mask & (1 << hook->num))) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if (type->type == NFT_CHAIN_T_NAT && > + hook->priority <= NF_IP_PRI_CONNTRACK) > + return -EINVAL; EINVAL is usually for missing netlink attributes, so I'd go for EOPNOTSUPP instead. No need to resend I can mangle this here if you prefer. > + > if (!try_module_get(type->owner)) > return -ENOENT; > > -- > 2.13.6 > > -- > 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 -- 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
