From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -next] netfilter: don't use per-destination incrementing ports in nat random mode Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:25:42 +0100 Message-ID: <52B5C106.4060507@redhat.com> References: <20131219134007.GA24118@order.stressinduktion.org> <52B37F6B.9010105@redhat.com> <20131220004822.GC32129@order.stressinduktion.org> <20131220080118.GA4234@localhost> <20131220214029.GB14073@order.stressinduktion.org> <20131221121759.GA27158@localhost> <20131221122617.GF14073@order.stressinduktion.org> <20131221122751.GA27268@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131221122751.GA27268@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On 12/21/2013 01:27 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 01:26:17PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 01:17:59PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_nat.h b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_nat.h >>>> index bf0cc37..1ad3659 100644 >>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_nat.h >>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_nat.h >>> >>> This is exposed to userspace. >>> >>>> @@ -4,10 +4,14 @@ >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> >>>> -#define NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS 1 >>>> -#define NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED 2 >>>> -#define NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_RANDOM 4 >>>> -#define NF_NAT_RANGE_PERSISTENT 8 >>>> +#define NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS (1 << 0) >>>> +#define NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED (1 << 1) >>>> +#define NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_RANDOM (1 << 2) >>>> +#define NF_NAT_RANGE_PERSISTENT (1 << 3) >>>> +#define NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_RANDOM_FULLY (1 << 4) >>> >>> So you cannot change it. It would break old iptables binaries. >> >> There are no semantic changes besides the addition of >> NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_RANDOM_FULLY. Otherwise just the notation is changed, >> which looks sane to me. > > My fault sorry. I overlooked that you were just converting from > numeric to flag notation. Yes, this was just for readability. > This is fine. > >>> BTW, please send me the userspace part. >> >> Daniel has the patch ready, I think he will submit it later today. I was most of the part on travel today, but I'll see if I can finish the user space part tonight and send it out. Thanks, Daniel