From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D665C4646B for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:02:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4884D205C9 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kaechele.ca header.i=@kaechele.ca header.b="mlKgfqo4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730662AbfFYDCp (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 23:02:45 -0400 Received: from mail.fetzig.org ([54.39.219.108]:43826 "EHLO mail.fetzig.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730654AbfFYDCo (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 23:02:44 -0400 Received: from authenticated-user (PRIMARY_HOSTNAME [PUBLIC_IP]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: felix@fetzig.org) by mail.fetzig.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ACEE8107C; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 23:02:42 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kaechele.ca; s=kaechele.ca-201608; t=1561431762; bh=K8Mmb0/02NQkOFBzxgJAfaACjjI1q3xuRj529hQALzo=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mlKgfqo4jzuZ3o1ir/tYjD4XUGJC/OtLvOajJ4KYfpTh8kTuOPP7/7E64OKmShGhd xPC1Ki3Pcs+Z6YjCBty1LHOtjNuWhsx4Crat7oUmQVowjfxs57wdHEMpHo/wnlwiDV WJDt/Ha2aeWBEVgxMI0SQWEglEEvxHSJODCHm7gcItnCpxifdkSW+lTTX4mXj1lsJb ffpcaAalePpYO9wANPhHM9Wgtyl0XFONFCbVHuKdJBhhRNLb/+MJ709GHUgikTW/kF PZpJxztqqEdS6K48dWwTWbgGbYeSqo49nyVwaFs4LpjTBMGMRApVM9Brv4ib29u+44 rPg0wFXNz6iNA== Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] netfilter: ctnetlink: Resolve conntrack L3-protocol flush regression To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org References: <20190513095630.32443-1-pablo@netfilter.org> <20190513095630.32443-9-pablo@netfilter.org> <0a4e3cd2-82f7-8ad6-2403-9852e34c8ac3@kaechele.ca> <20190624235816.vw6ahepdgvxhvdej@salvia> From: Felix Kaechele Message-ID: <4367f30f-4602-a4b6-a96e-35d879cc7758@kaechele.ca> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 23:02:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190624235816.vw6ahepdgvxhvdej@salvia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-CA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at pandora.fk.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On 2019-06-24 7:58 p.m., Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Could you give a try to this patch? Hi there, unfortunately the patch didn't work for me. I did some deeper digging and it seems that nf_conntrack_find_get within ctnetlink_del_conntrack will not find the entry if the address family for the delete query is AF_UNSPEC (due to nfmsg->version being 0) but the conntrack entry was initially created with AF_INET as the address family. I believe the tuples will have different hashes in this case and my guess is that this is not accounted for in the code, i.e. that AF_UNSPEC should match both AF_INET and AF_INET6. At the moment it seems to match none instead. I could be wrong though, I'm not that familiar with the netfilter code. Regards, Felix