Re: [PATCH iptables RFC 4/4] nft: don't care about previous state in RESTART

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

 



On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:49:38PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:41:15PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > We need to re-evalute based on the existing cache generation.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  iptables/nft.c | 19 +++++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/iptables/nft.c b/iptables/nft.c
> > index c1a079b734cf..bc3847d7ea47 100644
> > --- a/iptables/nft.c
> > +++ b/iptables/nft.c
> > @@ -2782,10 +2782,10 @@ static void nft_refresh_transaction(struct nft_handle *h)
> >  			if (!tablename)
> >  				continue;
> >  			exists = nft_table_find(h, tablename);
> > -			if (n->skip && exists)
> > -				n->skip = 0;
> > -			else if (!n->skip && !exists)
> > +			if (exists)
> >  				n->skip = 1;
> > +			else
> > +				n->skip = 0;
> 
> Actually, this should be the opposite:
> 
>  			if (exists)
>  				n->skip = 0;
> 			else
> 				n->skip = 1;
> 
> So we only skip the flush if the table does not exist.
> 
> Still not working though, hitting EEXIST on CHAIN_USER_ADD.

Hm.

I also occasionally see "Message too long" errors, so looks like a few
more bugs ahead.



[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux