Commit be7be6e1 authored by Florian Westphal's avatar Florian Westphal Committed by Pablo Neira Ayuso

netfilter: ipvs: fix incorrect conflict resolution

The commit ab8bc7ed
("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 41390895
("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: default avatarFlorian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
parent 01026ede
......@@ -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,
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment