From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752873Ab0CMGZK (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:25:10 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:58146 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752260Ab0CMGZJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:25:09 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:24:46 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, Patrick McHardy , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Tim Gardner , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable-review@kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [104/145] netfilter: xt_recent: fix false match Message-ID: <20100313062446.GG12342@1wt.eu> References: <20100313002816.GA18903@kroah.com> <20100313002714.299272135@kvm.kroah.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100313002714.299272135@kvm.kroah.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:27:17PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > 2.6.32-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > ---------------- > From: Tim Gardner > > commit 8ccb92ad41cb311e52ad1b1fe77992c7f47a3b63 upstream. > > A rule with a zero hit_count will always match. > > Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner > Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > --- > net/netfilter/xt_recent.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- a/net/netfilter/xt_recent.c > +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_recent.c > @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ recent_mt(const struct sk_buff *skb, con > for (i = 0; i < e->nstamps; i++) { > if (info->seconds && time_after(time, e->stamps[i])) > continue; > - if (++hits >= info->hit_count) { > + if (info->hit_count && ++hits >= info->hit_count) { > ret = !ret; > break; > } I don't know if this has any undesired side effect or not, but the logic is changed now since "hits" will not be increased anymore when info->hit_count is zero. And the code does not make it obvious to me what the intended purpose was. For this reason I always find it dangerous to change variables in if() conditions because it's where we change operations the most frequently when fixing bugs. Willy