On 12/20/2019 5:13 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:53:38AM +0800, wenxu wrote:
>> Maybe the patch your suggestion is not correct?
>>
>> On 12/20/2019 6:18 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_flow_table_offload.c b/net/netfilter/nf_flow_table_offload.c
>>> index 506aaaf8151d..8680fc56cd7c 100644
>>> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_flow_table_offload.c
>>> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_flow_table_offload.c
>>> @@ -156,14 +156,14 @@ static int flow_offload_eth_dst(struct net *net,
>>> enum flow_offload_tuple_dir dir,
>>> struct nf_flow_rule *flow_rule)
>>> {
>>> - const struct flow_offload_tuple *tuple = &flow->tuplehash[dir].tuple;
>>> + const struct flow_offload_tuple *tuple = &flow->tuplehash[!dir].tuple;
>>> struct flow_action_entry *entry0 = flow_action_entry_next(flow_rule);
>>> struct flow_action_entry *entry1 = flow_action_entry_next(flow_rule);
>>> struct neighbour *n;
>>> u32 mask, val;
>>> u16 val16;
>>>
>>> - n = dst_neigh_lookup(tuple->dst_cache, &tuple->dst_v4);
>>> + n = dst_neigh_lookup(tuple->dst_cache, &tuple->src_v4);
>> The dst_cache should be flow->tuplehash[dir].tuple.dst_cache but not peer dir's;
> Hm, I think this is like your patch, but without the two extra new lines
> and new variable definitions.
There is a little bit different. The dst_cache should get from flow->tuplehash[dir].tuple.dst_cache
but not flow->tuplehash[!dir].tuple.dst_cache
>
