| Message ID | 20170418154956.22233-1-fw@strlen.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Pablo Neira |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:49:56PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > The commit ab8bc7ed864b9c4f1fcb00a22bbe4e0f66ce8003 > ("netfilter: remove nf_ct_is_untracked") > changed the line > if (ct && !nf_ct_is_untracked(ct) && nfct_nat(ct)) { > to > if (ct && nfct_nat(ct)) { > > meanwhile, the commit 41390895e50bc4f28abe384c6b35ac27464a20ec > ("netfilter: ipvs: don't check for presence of nat extension") > from ipvs-next had changed the same line to > > if (ct && !nf_ct_is_untracked(ct) && (ct->status & IPS_NAT_MASK)) { > > When ipvs-next got merged into nf-next, the merge resolution took > the first version, dropping the conversion of nfct_nat(). > > While this doesn't cause a problem at the moment, it will once we stop > adding the nat extension by default. Also applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ftp.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ftp.c index af3a9bbdf2ae..fb780be76d15 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ftp.c +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ftp.c @@ -260,8 +260,9 @@ static int ip_vs_ftp_out(struct ip_vs_app *app, struct ip_vs_conn *cp, buf_len = strlen(buf); ct = nf_ct_get(skb, &ctinfo); - if (ct && nfct_nat(ct)) { + if (ct && (ct->status & IPS_NAT_MASK)) { bool mangled; + /* If mangling fails this function will return 0 * which will cause the packet to be dropped. * Mangling can only fail under memory pressure,
The commit ab8bc7ed864b9c4f1fcb00a22bbe4e0f66ce8003 ("netfilter: remove nf_ct_is_untracked") changed the line if (ct && !nf_ct_is_untracked(ct) && nfct_nat(ct)) { to if (ct && nfct_nat(ct)) { meanwhile, the commit 41390895e50bc4f28abe384c6b35ac27464a20ec ("netfilter: ipvs: don't check for presence of nat extension") from ipvs-next had changed the same line to if (ct && !nf_ct_is_untracked(ct) && (ct->status & IPS_NAT_MASK)) { When ipvs-next got merged into nf-next, the merge resolution took the first version, dropping the conversion of nfct_nat(). While this doesn't cause a problem at the moment, it will once we stop adding the nat extension by default. Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> --- Pablo, I prefer if this can go via nf-next rather than ipvs-next.