On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 11:58 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 01:15:58PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 07:36 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > Wouldn't fib_netdev.c have the same problem?
> > Probably, but I haven't hit this issue yet.
> > 
> > > If so, might be better to place this test in both
> > > nft_fib6_eval_type and nft_fib6_eval.
> > 
> > I think that is possible, and not very hard to do.
> > 
> > But in my humble viewpoint, it looks like it's nft_fib_inet_eval() and
> > nft_fib_netdev_eval() have the responsibility to choose a valid
> > protocol or drop the package. 
> > I am not sure if it would be a good move to transfer this
> > responsibility to nft_fib6_eval_type() and nft_fib6_eval(), so I would
> > rather add the same test to nft_fib_netdev_eval().
> > 
> > Does it make sense?
> 
> Please, update common code to netdev and ip6 extensions as Florian
> suggests.
> 
> Thanks.

Ok then, I will send a v2 with that change.

Thanks,