PATCH Re: ipt_ulog.h versus ebt_ulog.h

[Amin Azez <azez@ufomechanic.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 501 bytes --]

Do we need an equivalent patch for ulog2?

ipt_ULOG was logging the bridge device instead of the physical devices
(for bridged packets at least).

This patch does it's best to cause logging of the physical devices
involved. I realise the patch is not going to be handled as it addresses
ulog1 but I should ask if the problem of not logging physical devices is
also a problem with ulog2.

Harald; also does it make sense with ulog2 to talk about merging
ebt_ulog_packet_msg and ulog_packet_msg?

Sam



[-- Attachment #2: ulog.physdev2.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1017 bytes --]

--- ./net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_ULOG.c.prephysdev	2005-10-19 10:46:52.000000000 +0100
+++ ./net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_ULOG.c	2005-10-19 11:55:49.000000000 +0100
@@ -244,14 +244,26 @@
 	} else
 		pm->mac_len = 0;
 
-	if (in)
-		strncpy(pm->indev_name, in->name, sizeof(pm->indev_name));
-	else
+	if (in) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER
+		if (skb->nf_bridge) 
+			strncpy(pm->indev_name, &(skb->nf_bridge->physindev->name), sizeof(pm->indev_name));
+		else if (skb->input_dev) 
+			strncpy(pm->indev_name, &(skb->input_dev.name), sizeof(pm->indev_name));
+		else 
+#endif
+			strncpy(pm->indev_name, in->name, sizeof(pm->indev_name));
+	} else
 		pm->indev_name[0] = '\0';
 
-	if (out)
+	if (out) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER
+		if (skb->nf_bridge) 
+			strncpy(pm->outdev_name, &(skb->nf_bridge->physoutdev->name), sizeof(pm->outdev_name));
+		else 
+#endif
 		strncpy(pm->outdev_name, out->name, sizeof(pm->outdev_name));
-	else
+	} else
 		pm->outdev_name[0] = '\0';
 
 	/* copy_len <= skb->len, so can't fail. */