From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx_rcv header length assumptions
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:39:12 +0100
Message-ID: <4B4ED830.4040407@trash.net>
References: <4B49D001.4000302@gmail.com> <4B4DA4F4.6060007@gmail.com>	 <20100113115617.GA24818@basil.fritz.box> <4B4DE887.6030602@gmail.com>	 <20100113155323.GB24818@basil.fritz.box> <4B4E23E0.4000007@gmail.com>	 <4B4E378A.7040506@gmail.com> <1263430990.1966.12.camel@Joe-Laptop.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:59982 "EHLO
	stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932110Ab0ANIjS (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:39:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1263430990.1966.12.camel@Joe-Laptop.home>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 16:13 -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> I did today's tests on tcp_ipv4, but part of this harmonization is to
>> make v4 and v6 match up better.  As I was examining line by line, one of
>> the things that leaps out is that ipv4 has nf_reset(skb):
>>
>> tcp_ipv4:
>> 	if (!xfrm4_policy_check(sk, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))
>> 		goto discard_and_relse;
>> 	nf_reset(skb);
>>
>> 	if (sk_filter(sk, skb))
>> 		goto discard_and_relse;
>>
>> tcp_ipv6:
>> 	if (!xfrm6_policy_check(sk, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))
>> 		goto discard_and_relse;
>>
>> 	if (sk_filter(sk, skb))
>> 		goto discard_and_relse;
>>
>> Does anybody know why?  Should ipv6 have it?  Or at least a comment
>> explaining the reasoning for the omission?
> 
> You should ask the person that put the line in, but
> it might be because no IPv6 NAT support exists.
> 
> $ git blame -L 1658,1658 net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c
> b59c2701 (Patrick McHardy 2006-01-06 23:06:10 -0800 1658)       nf_reset(skb);
> 
> And
> 
> $ git log -p -1 b59c2701
> commit b59c270104f03960069596722fea70340579244d
> Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
> Date:   Fri Jan 6 23:06:10 2006 -0800
> 
>     [NETFILTER]: Keep conntrack reference until IPsec policy checks are done
>     
>     Keep the conntrack reference until policy checks have been performed for
>     IPsec NAT support. The reference needs to be dropped before a packet is
>     queued to avoid having the conntrack module unloadable.

In IPv6 it is released in ip6_input.c before the packet is handed to
the protocol handler.