On Wednesday 03 January 2007 09:34, Martin Josefsson wrote: > I saw your (correct) analysis after having made the patch below, it has > been tested successfully by Bernhard Schmidt. (Netfilter bugzilla #528) > > Check the return value of nfct_nat() in device_cmp(), we might very well > have non NAT conntrack entries as well. >
I was not capable to reproduce the problem. Thanks :)
> Signed-off-by: Martin Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- linux-2.6.20-rc3/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c.orig 2007-01-02
> 22:47:14.000000000 +0100 +++
> linux-2.6.20-rc3/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c 2007-01-02
> 22:57:11.000000000 +0100 @@ -127,10 +127,13 @@
> static inline int
> device_cmp(struct ip_conntrack *i, void *ifindex)
> {
> + int ret;
> #ifdef CONFIG_NF_NAT_NEEDED
> struct nf_conn_nat *nat = nfct_nat(i);
> +
> + if (!nat)
> + return 0;
> #endif
> - int ret;
>
> read_lock_bh(&masq_lock);
> #ifdef CONFIG_NF_NAT_NEEDED
--
---------------------------------------
Malte Schröder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 68121508
---------------------------------------
pgpVEh9WVtsAO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
