Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > connection. Feel free to send patches that replace drop with -accept
> > where possible/where it makes sense, but I don't think the
> > TCP_CONNTRACK_SYN_SENT one can reasonably be avoided.
>
> Oh, are you suggesting replacing NF_DROP with -NF_ACCEPT in
> nf_conntrack_dccp_packet()?
It would be more consistent with what tcp and sctp trackers are
doing, but this should not matter in practice (the packet is malformed).
> > + case NFCT_TCP_INVALID: {
> > + verdict = -NF_ACCEPT;
> > + if (ct->status & IPS_NAT_MASK)
> > + res = NF_DROP; /* skb would miss nat transformation */
>
> Above line, I guess, should be 'verdict = NF_DROP'?
Yes.
> Great! I think your draft patch makes sense really, which takes NAT
> into consideration.
You could submit this officially and we could give it a try and see if
anyone complains down the road.
