[PATCH] ctnetlink: make sure event order is correct

[Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2126 bytes --]

Hi Dave, please apply.

[NETFILTER] ctnetlink: make sure event order is correct

The following sequence is displayed during events dumping of an ICMP
connection: [NEW] [DESTROY] [UPDATE]

This happens because the event IPCT_DESTROY is delivered in
death_by_timeout(), that is called from the icmp protocol helper
(ct->timeout.function) once we see the reply.

To fix this, we move this event to destroy_conntrack().

Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@eurodev.net>
Signed-off-by: Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>

---
commit cb90ab7c56471a733f5a91a3ec2cfbd45093e8a0
tree cf84842a1e41dcaefd9934f9752df2ca977831d7
parent 570b2053cc2c68da90b71add2a4f4366673b48d8
author Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org> Fr, 05 Aug 2005 14:28:31 +0200
committer Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org> Fr, 05 Aug 2005 14:28:31 +0200

 net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c
@@ -327,6 +327,7 @@ destroy_conntrack(struct nf_conntrack *n
 	IP_NF_ASSERT(atomic_read(&nfct->use) == 0);
 	IP_NF_ASSERT(!timer_pending(&ct->timeout));
 
+	ip_conntrack_event(IPCT_DESTROY, ct);
 	set_bit(IPS_DYING_BIT, &ct->status);
 
 	/* To make sure we don't get any weird locking issues here:
@@ -366,7 +367,6 @@ static void death_by_timeout(unsigned lo
 {
 	struct ip_conntrack *ct = (void *)ul_conntrack;
 
-	ip_conntrack_event(IPCT_DESTROY, ct);
 	write_lock_bh(&ip_conntrack_lock);
 	/* Inside lock so preempt is disabled on module removal path.
 	 * Otherwise we can get spurious warnings. */
-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>                 http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]