Hi Venkatesh
You wrote:
I was looking into the iptables implementation and was intrigued about
how iptables would handle a situation in which we have identical rules
except for their targets which are contradicting, say ACCEPT and DROP.
By looking at ipt_do_table() function it seems that the first
non-IPT_RETURN verdict from any standard target will end the traversal
of a chain of a table, which seems to be a bit odd. First, such
conflicting rules must not be allowed. Even beyond, this fails in the
situation where you have a dropping rule added after an accepting rule.
You misunderstand the definition of conflicting rules in the context
of the packet classification problem. A conflict occurs if there are
two or more matching rules with the same minimal cost. Since the cost of
a rule is equivalent to its position in the chain[1] and the position is
unique there are no conflicts by definition.
This holds for both iptables and nf-hipac.
[1] at least if you're not using user-defined chains; but even if user-
defined chains come into play the costs are in fact unique
For example, a packet from m.n.o.p to a.b.c.d would be accepted at
a.b.c.d because of the first rule, although it had to be dropped
according to the second rule. And this would result because of the
order in which the rules are added to the table.
This behaviour is intended. The packet classification problem is about
finding the matching rule with minimal cost.
Thomas
