From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix NAT TCP sequence adjustment Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:32:16 +0200 Message-ID: <42523F00.7010902@trash.net> References: <20050402202438.GA2968@linuxace.com> <4250435E.1090309@trash.net> <20050403235320.GB28850@linuxace.com> <20050404044033.GA1847@linuxace.com> <4250FA72.3020502@trash.net> <20050404204716.GA4067@linuxace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Harald Welte , Rusty Russell , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Phil Oester In-Reply-To: <20050404204716.GA4067@linuxace.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Phil Oester wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:27:30AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>So in conclusion it seems simply doing "seq -= this_way->offset_after" >>without the seq != this_way->correction_pos check handles all cases >>correctly. Please someone verify I didn't make a mistake. I think a >>comment explaining the cases would also be appropriate. > > > I think you are only thinking in terms of positive sizediff, while this > is not always the case. Perhaps easiest to explain by observed example. Damn, you're right. > Ack? Let me think about it again, I'll get back to you. Regards Patrick