Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS)

To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: xt_ipvs (netfilter matcher for IPVS)
Cc: Hannes Eder <heder@xxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Fabien Duchêne <mad_fab@xxxxxxxxx>, Jean-Luc Fortemaison <jl.fortemaison@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>, Julius Volz <julius.volz@xxxxxxxxx>, Laurent Grawet <laurent.grawet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:51:42 +0200
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2009-09-02 17:36, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> Nice, I'll use par->family.
>>> So in theory I do not even need a check like the following in the beginning?
>>>     if (family != NFPROTO_IPV4
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6
>>>         && family != NFPROTO_IPV6
>>> #endif
>>>             ) {
>>>             match = false;
>>>             goto out;
>>>     }
>> With the AF_UNSPEC registration of your match, it might be used
> par->family always contains the NFPROTO of the invoking implementation,
> which can never be UNSPEC (except, in future, xtables2 ;-)

I didn't say it will be UNSPEC, I said it might be something
different than IPV4/IPV6 unless that is checked *somewhere*.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>