forked from Minki/linux
netfilter: ipvs: fix incorrect conflict resolution
The commitab8bc7ed86
("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 commit41390895e5
("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> Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
01026edef9
commit
be7be6e161
@ -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,
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user