[nft PATCH 1/4] evaluate: refactor function to check the reject family in inet and bridge

[nft PATCH 1/4] evaluate: refactor function to check the reject family in inet and bridge

[Alvaro Neira Ayuso]

This patch make a refactorization of the code to check the reject family in inet
and bridge. These changes will be used in follow up patches.

Signed-off-by: Alvaro Neira Ayuso <alvaroneay@gmail.com>
---
 src/evaluate.c |  110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
index 1fec120..977df86 100644
--- a/src/evaluate.c
+++ b/src/evaluate.c
@@ -1202,12 +1202,72 @@ static int stmt_reject_gen_dependency(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int stmt_evaluate_reject_family(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
+static int stmt_evaluate_reject_inet(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
+				       struct expr *expr)
+{
+	const struct proto_desc *desc, *base;
+	int protocol;
+
+	base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
+	desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
+	if (desc != NULL) {
+		protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
+		switch (protocol) {
+		case NFPROTO_IPV4:
+			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
+				return 0;
+			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
+		case NFPROTO_IPV6:
+			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
+				return 0;
+			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
+		default:
+			BUG("unsupported family");
+		}
+	}
+	if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
+		return 0;
+	if (stmt_reject_gen_dependency(ctx, stmt, expr) < 0)
+		return -1;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int stmt_evaluate_reject_bridge(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
 				       struct expr *expr)
 {
 	const struct proto_desc *desc, *base;
 	int protocol;
 
+	base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
+	desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
+	if (desc != NULL) {
+		protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
+		switch (protocol) {
+		case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP):
+			if (NFPROTO_IPV4 == stmt->reject.family)
+				return 0;
+		case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IPV6):
+			if (NFPROTO_IPV6 == stmt->reject.family)
+				return 0;
+			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
+		default:
+			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+					  "cannot reject this ether type");
+		}
+	}
+	if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
+		return 0;
+	if (stmt_reject_gen_dependency(ctx, stmt, expr) < 0)
+		return -1;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int stmt_evaluate_reject_family(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
+				       struct expr *expr)
+{
 	switch (ctx->pctx.family) {
 	case NFPROTO_ARP:
 		return stmt_error(ctx, stmt, "cannot use reject with arp");
@@ -1229,55 +1289,11 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_reject_family(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
 		}
 		break;
 	case NFPROTO_BRIDGE:
-		base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
-		desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
-		if (desc != NULL) {
-			protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
-			switch (protocol) {
-			case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP):
-				if (NFPROTO_IPV4 == stmt->reject.family)
-					break;
-			case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IPV6):
-				if (NFPROTO_IPV6 == stmt->reject.family)
-					break;
-				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
-				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
-			default:
-				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
-						"cannot reject this ether type");
-			}
-			break;
-		}
-		if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
-			break;
-		if (stmt_reject_gen_dependency(ctx, stmt, expr) < 0)
+		if (stmt_evaluate_reject_bridge(ctx, stmt, expr) < 0)
 			return -1;
 		break;
 	case NFPROTO_INET:
-		base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
-		desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
-		if (desc != NULL) {
-			protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
-			switch (protocol) {
-			case NFPROTO_IPV4:
-				if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
-					break;
-				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
-				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
-				break;
-			case NFPROTO_IPV6:
-				if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
-					break;
-				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
-				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
-			default:
-				BUG("unsupported family");
-			}
-			break;
-		}
-		if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
-			break;
-		if (stmt_reject_gen_dependency(ctx, stmt, expr) < 0)
+		if (stmt_evaluate_reject_inet(ctx, stmt, expr) < 0)
 			return -1;
 		break;
 	}
-- 
1.7.10.4

[nft PATCH 2/4] evaluate: accept a reject reason with incorrect network context

[Alvaro Neira Ayuso]

nft add rule bridge test-bridge input ether type ip \
				reject with icmpv6 type no-route

This rule pass the evaluation step but the network context is incompatible with
the reject reason. In that cases, we have to throw an error like "conflicting
protocols specified: ip vs ip6"

Signed-off-by: Alvaro Neira Ayuso <alvaroneay@gmail.com>
---
 src/evaluate.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
index 977df86..20235a8 100644
--- a/src/evaluate.c
+++ b/src/evaluate.c
@@ -1248,6 +1248,8 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_reject_bridge(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
 		case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP):
 			if (NFPROTO_IPV4 == stmt->reject.family)
 				return 0;
+			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
 		case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IPV6):
 			if (NFPROTO_IPV6 == stmt->reject.family)
 				return 0;
-- 
1.7.10.4

[nft PATCH 3/4] evaluate: no check the network context in reject with tcp reset reason

[Alvaro Neira Ayuso]

nft add rule -nnn bridge test-bridge input \
			ip protocol tcp reject with tcp reset

If we use in reject the type tcp reset. We don't need to check if the network
context is compatible with the reason. This patch fix that.

Signed-off-by: Alvaro Neira Ayuso <alvaroneay@gmail.com>
---
 src/evaluate.c |   80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
index 20235a8..8b19baf 100644
--- a/src/evaluate.c
+++ b/src/evaluate.c
@@ -1208,24 +1208,31 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_reject_inet(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
 	const struct proto_desc *desc, *base;
 	int protocol;
 
-	base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
-	desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
-	if (desc != NULL) {
-		protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
-		switch (protocol) {
-		case NFPROTO_IPV4:
-			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
-				return 0;
-			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
-			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
-		case NFPROTO_IPV6:
-			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
-				return 0;
-			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
-			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
-		default:
-			BUG("unsupported family");
+	switch (stmt->reject.type) {
+	case NFT_REJECT_TCP_RST:
+		break;
+	case NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH:
+	case NFT_REJECT_ICMP_UNREACH:
+		base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
+		desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
+		if (desc != NULL) {
+			protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
+			switch (protocol) {
+			case NFPROTO_IPV4:
+				if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
+					return 0;
+				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
+			case NFPROTO_IPV6:
+				if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
+					return 0;
+				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
+			default:
+				BUG("unsupported family");
+			}
 		}
+		break;
 	}
 	if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
 		return 0;
@@ -1240,25 +1247,32 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_reject_bridge(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
 	const struct proto_desc *desc, *base;
 	int protocol;
 
-	base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
-	desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
-	if (desc != NULL) {
-		protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
-		switch (protocol) {
-		case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP):
-			if (NFPROTO_IPV4 == stmt->reject.family)
-				return 0;
-			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+	switch (stmt->reject.type) {
+	case NFT_REJECT_TCP_RST:
+		break;
+	case NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH:
+	case NFT_REJECT_ICMP_UNREACH:
+		base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
+		desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
+		if (desc != NULL) {
+			protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
+			switch (protocol) {
+			case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP):
+				if (NFPROTO_IPV4 == stmt->reject.family)
+					return 0;
+				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
 				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
-		case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IPV6):
-			if (NFPROTO_IPV6 == stmt->reject.family)
-				return 0;
-			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+			case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IPV6):
+				if (NFPROTO_IPV6 == stmt->reject.family)
+					return 0;
+				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
 				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
-		default:
-			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
-					  "cannot reject this ether type");
+			default:
+				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
+					       "cannot reject this ether type");
+			}
 		}
+		break;
 	}
 	if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
 		return 0;
-- 
1.7.10.4

[nft PATCH 4/4 v3] evaluate: fix a crash if we check the transport protocol is tcp

[Alvaro Neira Ayuso]

Example:

nft add rule inet filter input meta l4proto udp reject with tcp reset

If we try to check if the transport protocol is tcp, we use the network context.
If we don't have this network context, we have a crash.

Signed-off-by: Alvaro Neira Ayuso <alvaroneay@gmail.com>
---
[changes in v3]
 * Use the proto_inet_service proto in cases that we don't have network context

 src/evaluate.c |    6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
index 8b19baf..fc3b1a2 100644
--- a/src/evaluate.c
+++ b/src/evaluate.c
@@ -1365,6 +1365,12 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_reset(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt)
 	if (desc == NULL)
 		return 0;
 
+	/* If we don't have network context in inet or bridge */
+	if (base == NULL &&
+	    (ctx->pctx.family == NFPROTO_INET ||
+	     ctx->pctx.family == NFPROTO_BRIDGE))
+		base = &proto_inet_service;
+
 	protonum = proto_find_num(base, desc);
 	switch (protonum) {
 	case IPPROTO_TCP:
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [nft PATCH 3/4] evaluate: no check the network context in reject with tcp reset reason

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:29:39AM +0200, Alvaro Neira Ayuso wrote:
> nft add rule -nnn bridge test-bridge input \
> 			ip protocol tcp reject with tcp reset
> 
> If we use in reject the type tcp reset. We don't need to check if the network
> context is compatible with the reason. This patch fix that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alvaro Neira Ayuso <alvaroneay@gmail.com>
> ---
>  src/evaluate.c |   80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
> index 20235a8..8b19baf 100644
> --- a/src/evaluate.c
> +++ b/src/evaluate.c
> @@ -1208,24 +1208,31 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_reject_inet(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
>  	const struct proto_desc *desc, *base;
>  	int protocol;
>  
> -	base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
> -	desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
> -	if (desc != NULL) {
> -		protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
> -		switch (protocol) {
> -		case NFPROTO_IPV4:
> -			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
> -				return 0;
> -			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
> -			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
> -		case NFPROTO_IPV6:
> -			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
> -				return 0;
> -			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
> -			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
> -		default:
> -			BUG("unsupported family");
> +	switch (stmt->reject.type) {
> +	case NFT_REJECT_TCP_RST:
> +		break;
> +	case NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH:

Do you really need to check layer 3 conflicts with icmpx?

> +	case NFT_REJECT_ICMP_UNREACH:
> +		base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
> +		desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
> +		if (desc != NULL) {
> +			protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
> +			switch (protocol) {
> +			case NFPROTO_IPV4:
> +				if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
> +					return 0;
> +				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
> +				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
> +			case NFPROTO_IPV6:
> +				if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
> +					return 0;
> +				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
> +				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
> +			default:
> +				BUG("unsupported family");
> +			}
>  		}
> +		break;
>  	}
>  	if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
>  		return 0;

Re: [nft PATCH 4/4 v3] evaluate: fix a crash if we check the transport protocol is tcp

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:29:40AM +0200, Alvaro Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Example:
> 
> nft add rule inet filter input meta l4proto udp reject with tcp reset
> 
> If we try to check if the transport protocol is tcp, we use the network context.
> If we don't have this network context, we have a crash.

I have applied this with minor changes.

Please, select the patch ordering carefully. This is a v3 coming as
the 4th patch in a batch.

Remember: Fixes always come in first place. Thanks.

Re: [nft PATCH 1/4] evaluate: refactor function to check the reject family in inet and bridge

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:29:37AM +0200, Alvaro Neira Ayuso wrote:
> This patch make a refactorization of the code to check the reject family in inet
> and bridge. These changes will be used in follow up patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alvaro Neira Ayuso <alvaroneay@gmail.com>
> ---
>  src/evaluate.c |  110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
> index 1fec120..977df86 100644
> --- a/src/evaluate.c
> +++ b/src/evaluate.c
> @@ -1202,12 +1202,72 @@ static int stmt_reject_gen_dependency(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int stmt_evaluate_reject_family(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
> +static int stmt_evaluate_reject_inet(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
> +				       struct expr *expr)
> +{
> +	const struct proto_desc *desc, *base;
> +	int protocol;
> +
> +	base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;

This base pointer is fetched, but you only need this if desc != NULL.
Please, while you're refactoring this, it's good if you avoid this.

> +	desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
> +	if (desc != NULL) {

>From here:

> +		protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
> +		switch (protocol) {
> +		case NFPROTO_IPV4:
> +			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
> +				return 0;
> +			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
> +			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
> +		case NFPROTO_IPV6:
> +			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
> +				return 0;
> +			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
> +			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
> +		default:
> +			BUG("unsupported family");
> +		}
> +	}

to there. You can put this code in another function, given that you'll
need it again for your patch 3/4.

static int stmt_evaluate_reject_inet_family(...)
{
	int protocol;

	protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
	switch (protocol) {
	case NFPROTO_IPV4:
		if (stmt->reject.family != NFPROTO_IPV4)
			return -1;

                break;
	case NFPROTO_IPV6:
		if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
			return -1;

                break;
	default:
		BUG("unsupported family");
	}

        return 0;
}

Then, from stmt_evaluate_reject_inet():

        if (desc != NULL &&
            stmt_evaluate_reject_inet_family(...) < 0)
                return stmt_error(..., "conflicting protocols...");

> +	if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
> +		return 0;
> +	if (stmt_reject_gen_dependency(ctx, stmt, expr) < 0)
> +		return -1;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int stmt_evaluate_reject_bridge(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
>  				       struct expr *expr)

Same thing for the bridge code.

Re: [nft PATCH 4/4 v3] evaluate: fix a crash if we check the transport protocol is tcp

[Álvaro Neira Ayuso]

El 21/10/14 10:15, Pablo Neira Ayuso escribió:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:29:40AM +0200, Alvaro Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> Example:
>>
>> nft add rule inet filter input meta l4proto udp reject with tcp reset
>>
>> If we try to check if the transport protocol is tcp, we use the network context.
>> If we don't have this network context, we have a crash.
>
> I have applied this with minor changes.
>
> Please, select the patch ordering carefully. This is a v3 coming as
> the 4th patch in a batch.
>
> Remember: Fixes always come in first place. Thanks.
>

Catched. Sorry.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [nft PATCH 3/4] evaluate: no check the network context in reject with tcp reset reason

[Álvaro Neira Ayuso]

El 21/10/14 09:55, Pablo Neira Ayuso escribió:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:29:39AM +0200, Alvaro Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> nft add rule -nnn bridge test-bridge input \
>> 			ip protocol tcp reject with tcp reset
>>
>> If we use in reject the type tcp reset. We don't need to check if the network
>> context is compatible with the reason. This patch fix that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alvaro Neira Ayuso <alvaroneay@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   src/evaluate.c |   80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>   1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
>> index 20235a8..8b19baf 100644
>> --- a/src/evaluate.c
>> +++ b/src/evaluate.c
>> @@ -1208,24 +1208,31 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_reject_inet(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt,
>>   	const struct proto_desc *desc, *base;
>>   	int protocol;
>>
>> -	base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
>> -	desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
>> -	if (desc != NULL) {
>> -		protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
>> -		switch (protocol) {
>> -		case NFPROTO_IPV4:
>> -			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
>> -				return 0;
>> -			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
>> -			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
>> -		case NFPROTO_IPV6:
>> -			if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
>> -				return 0;
>> -			return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
>> -			  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
>> -		default:
>> -			BUG("unsupported family");
>> +	switch (stmt->reject.type) {
>> +	case NFT_REJECT_TCP_RST:
>> +		break;
>> +	case NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH:
>
> Do you really need to check layer 3 conflicts with icmpx?

Ups you're right. In Inet tables we don't need to check it. We only have 
Ipv4 and Ipv6 traffic. I have been focus in bridge and I have followed 
the same steps (check the network context) like bridge tables and in 
Inet is not necessary.

I'm going to fix it. Thanks Pablo

>
>> +	case NFT_REJECT_ICMP_UNREACH:
>> +		base = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_LL_HDR].desc;
>> +		desc = ctx->pctx.protocol[PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR].desc;
>> +		if (desc != NULL) {
>> +			protocol = proto_find_num(base, desc);
>> +			switch (protocol) {
>> +			case NFPROTO_IPV4:
>> +				if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
>> +					return 0;
>> +				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
>> +				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
>> +			case NFPROTO_IPV6:
>> +				if (stmt->reject.family == NFPROTO_IPV6)
>> +					return 0;
>> +				return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
>> +				  "conflicting protocols specified: ip vs ip6");
>> +			default:
>> +				BUG("unsupported family");
>> +			}
>>   		}
>> +		break;
>>   	}
>>   	if (stmt->reject.type == NFT_REJECT_ICMPX_UNREACH)
>>   		return 0;

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html