From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Westphal Subject: Re: [PATCH nft] src: allow update of net base w. meta l4proto icmpv6 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:44:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20170322134412.GA8584@breakpoint.cc> References: <20170321185437.22959-1-fw@strlen.de> <20170322130902.GA21742@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([146.0.238.67]:53580 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759325AbdCVNoo (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:44:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170322130902.GA21742@salvia> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:54:37PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > nft add rule ip6 f i meta l4proto ipv6-icmp icmpv6 type nd-router-advert > > :1:50-60: Error: conflicting protocols specified: unknown vs. icmpv6 > > > > add icmpv6 to nexthdr list so base gets updated correctly. > > > > Reported-by: Thomas Woerner > > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal > > --- > > NB: This is STILL not correct. > > nft add rule ip6 f i meta l4proto ipv6-icmp icmpv6 type nd-router-advert > > gets listed as > > icmpv6 type nd-router-advert > > > > because post processing removes the l3 dependency. > > > > However, "icmpv6 type nd-router-advert" uses dependency > > ip6 nexthdr icmpv6 > > which isn't the same as meta l4proto icmpv6. > > > > I suspect nft should always generate implicit l4 dependencies > > via meta in the ipv6 case, what do others think > > (and not autoremove 'nexthdr' check)? > > I think we should use meta l4proto, ip6 nexthdr may point to some of > the extension headers in the packet actually. Yes. Alright, I'll work on this change towards l4 meta. > > diff --git a/src/proto.c b/src/proto.c > > index 79e9dbf2b33e..fcdfbe73c735 100644 > > --- a/src/proto.c > > +++ b/src/proto.c > > @@ -779,6 +779,7 @@ const struct proto_desc proto_inet_service = { > > PROTO_LINK(IPPROTO_TCP, &proto_tcp), > > PROTO_LINK(IPPROTO_DCCP, &proto_dccp), > > PROTO_LINK(IPPROTO_SCTP, &proto_sctp), > > + PROTO_LINK(IPPROTO_ICMPV6, &proto_icmp6), > > This also allows icmp6 from IPv4, right? I remember I mentioned this > in a patch that I attached to bugzilla at some point so I didn't apply > this. Yes, whats the concern with that?