On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:04 AM Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 12:17:45PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_TPROXY.c b/net/netfilter/xt_TPROXY.c
> > index 459d0696c91a..5d74abffc94f 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/xt_TPROXY.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_TPROXY.c
> > @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ tproxy_tg6_v1(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param *par)
> > targets on the same rule yet */
> > skb->mark = (skb->mark & ~tgi->mark_mask) ^ tgi->mark_value;
> >
> > - pr_debug("redirecting: proto %hhu %pI6:%hu -> %pI6:%hu, mark: %x\n",
> > + pr_debug("redirecting: proto %d %pI6:%hu -> %pI6:%hu, mark: %x\n",
> > tproto, &iph->saddr, ntohs(hp->source),
> > laddr, ntohs(lport), skb->mark);
> >
> > @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ tproxy_tg6_v1(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param *par)
> > return NF_ACCEPT;
> > }
> >
> > - pr_debug("no socket, dropping: proto %hhu %pI6:%hu -> %pI6:%hu, mark: %x\n",
> > + pr_debug("no socket, dropping: proto %d %pI6:%hu -> %pI6:%hu, mark: %x\n",
> > tproto, &iph->saddr, ntohs(hp->source),
> > &iph->daddr, ntohs(hp->dest), skb->mark);
>
> Could you instead send a patch to remove these pr_debug calls?
Do you mean all Instances of pr_debug in `xt_TPROXY.c` (of which there
are six) or just these two specific cases @ +169 and +177.
> Thanks.
