From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org
Cc: Justin Forbes <jmforbes@linuxtx.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Chuck Wolber <chuckw@quantumlinux.com>,
Chris Wedgwood <reviews@ml.cw.f00f.org>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@linuxtv.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>,
Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@gmail.com>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Netfilter Development Mailinglist
<netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Subject: [patch 67/73] Netfilter: bridge: fix double POST_ROUTING invocation
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:54:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080206235426.GP13121@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080206235015.GA13121@suse.de>
[-- Attachment #1: netfilter-bridge-fix-double-post_routing-invocation.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2655 bytes --]
2.6.23-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
------------------
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
[NETFILTER]: bridge: fix double POST_ROUTING invocation
Upstream commit 2948d2ebbb98747b912ac6d0c864b4d02be8a6f5
The bridge code incorrectly causes two POST_ROUTING hook invocations
for DNATed packets that end up on the same bridge device. This
happens because packets with a changed destination address are passed
to dst_output() to make them go through the neighbour output function
again to build a new destination MAC address, before they will continue
through the IP hooks simulated by bridge netfilter.
The resulting hook order is:
PREROUTING (bridge netfilter)
POSTROUTING (dst_output -> ip_output)
FORWARD (bridge netfilter)
POSTROUTING (bridge netfilter)
The deferred hooks used to abort the first POST_ROUTING invocation,
but since the only thing bridge netfilter actually really wants is
a new MAC address, we can avoid going through the IP stack completely
by simply calling the neighbour output function directly.
Tested, reported and lots of data provided by: Damien Thebault <damien.thebault@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
---
net/bridge/br_netfilter.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/net/bridge/br_netfilter.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_netfilter.c
@@ -247,8 +247,9 @@ static void __br_dnat_complain(void)
* Let us first consider the case that ip_route_input() succeeds:
*
* If skb->dst->dev equals the logical bridge device the packet
- * came in on, we can consider this bridging. We then call
- * skb->dst->output() which will make the packet enter br_nf_local_out()
+ * came in on, we can consider this bridging. The packet is passed
+ * through the neighbour output function to build a new destination
+ * MAC address, which will make the packet enter br_nf_local_out()
* not much later. In that function it is assured that the iptables
* FORWARD chain is traversed for the packet.
*
@@ -285,12 +286,17 @@ static int br_nf_pre_routing_finish_brid
skb->nf_bridge->mask ^= BRNF_NF_BRIDGE_PREROUTING;
skb->dev = bridge_parent(skb->dev);
- if (!skb->dev)
- kfree_skb(skb);
- else {
+ if (skb->dev) {
+ struct dst_entry *dst = skb->dst;
+
nf_bridge_pull_encap_header(skb);
- skb->dst->output(skb);
+
+ if (dst->hh)
+ return neigh_hh_output(dst->hh, skb);
+ else if (dst->neighbour)
+ return dst->neighbour->output(skb);
}
+ kfree_skb(skb);
return 0;
}
--
next parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-07 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20080206234302.769849277@mini.kroah.org>
[not found] ` <20080206235015.GA13121@suse.de>
2008-02-06 23:54 ` Greg KH [this message]
2008-02-06 23:54 ` [patch 68/73] Netfilter: bridge-netfilter: fix net_device refcnt leaks Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080206235426.GP13121@suse.de \
--to=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=cavokz@gmail.com \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=chuckw@quantumlinux.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jmforbes@linuxtx.org \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkrufky@linuxtv.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=reviews@ml.cw.f00f.org \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox