Re: [PATCH] CTA_PROTO_NUM is u_int8_t not u_int16_t (was Re: CTA_PROTO_NUM u_int8_t or u_int16_t)

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@eurodev.net>]

Hi Patrick,

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> 
>> The review cycle for the 2.6.14.4 was started. I can't find this fix
>> in listed patches and it seems 2.6.14 needs little different patch
>> than 2.6.15: s/size_t/int/.
>>
>> Patch attached, not sure what to do with Signed-off-by lines so please
>> feel free to correct it.
>>
>> Any chances for submitting it into -stable for inclusion in 2.6.14.4?
> 
> 
> Sorry, I wanted to wait until the patch hit Linus' tree and
> forgot about it. Unfortunately ctnetlink has a number of other
> issues in 2.6.14 that don't fulfil the -stable requirements,
> so in the end its still pretty unusable.
> 
> Anyway, this patch fixes a deadlock when dumping the conntrack
> table which has already hit a number of people. Please consider
> for -stable.
> 
> The patch Krzysztof attached went into 2.6.15-rc and fixes an
> attribute sizes that was used inconsistently. Without this patch
> compatiblity will break once we fix up the userspace side. The
> first released kernel with ctnetlink was 2.6.14, so far the only
> user known to me is a tool in beta-stage that lives in netfilter
> SVN. We would prefer to have no incompatiblities between at least
> 2.6.14.x and later kernels, so is something like this acceptable
> for -stable? If yes I'll send a patch that applies cleanly to
> 2.6.14.3.

The userspace part (libnetfilter_conntrack) is GPL at the moment, I
don't known any other GPL tool using the library at the moment apart
from the conntrack-tool. So I wouldn't care so much about breaking third
party applications that are not fulfilling the licensing requirements.

-- 
Pablo