提交 28a51ba5 编写于 作者: F Florian Westphal 提交者: Patrick McHardy

netfilter: do not omit re-route check on NF_QUEUE verdict

ret != NF_QUEUE only works in the "--queue-num 0" case; for
queues > 0 the test should be '(ret & NF_VERDICT_MASK) != NF_QUEUE'.

However, NF_QUEUE no longer DROPs the skb unconditionally if queueing
fails (due to NF_VERDICT_FLAG_QUEUE_BYPASS verdict flag), so the
re-route test should also be performed if this flag is set in the
verdict.

The full test would then look something like

&& ((ret & NF_VERDICT_MASK) == NF_QUEUE && (ret & NF_VERDICT_FLAG_QUEUE_BYPASS))

This is rather ugly, so just remove the NF_QUEUE test altogether.

The only effect is that we might perform an unnecessary route lookup
in the NF_QUEUE case.

ip6table_mangle did not have such a check.
Signed-off-by: NFlorian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Signed-off-by: NPatrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
上级 a07aa004
......@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ ipt_mangle_out(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct net_device *out)
ret = ipt_do_table(skb, NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT, NULL, out,
dev_net(out)->ipv4.iptable_mangle);
/* Reroute for ANY change. */
if (ret != NF_DROP && ret != NF_STOLEN && ret != NF_QUEUE) {
if (ret != NF_DROP && ret != NF_STOLEN) {
iph = ip_hdr(skb);
if (iph->saddr != saddr ||
......
Markdown is supported
0% .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑!
想要评论请 注册