Skip to content

Conversation

@nbuechner
Copy link

pull request as requested via support ticket

Copy link
Contributor

@nwerensteijn nwerensteijn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure if it is a good idea to merge this commit

return NF_DROP;

return NF_CONTINUE;
return XT_CONTINUE;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These were changed from NF_ACCEPT to XT_CONTINUE. This would change the way these matches work, since right now it is expected that a packet stops traversing the chain once it matches this rule. Is there a good reason to do this?

return NF_DROP;

return NF_CONTINUE;
return XT_CONTINUE;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same here

Copy link
Contributor

@nwerensteijn nwerensteijn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unclear reason for change

Comment on lines 190 to 194
if (unlikely(ip_route_me_harder(par_net(par), skb->sk, skb, RTN_UNSPEC) != 0)){
#else
if (unlikely(ip_route_me_harder(par_net(par), skb, RTN_UNSPEC) != 0)){
if (ip_route_me_harder(par_net(par), skb, RTN_UNSPEC) != 0){
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why remove the unlikely here?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants