On 10/16/15 at 11:08am, Joe Stringer wrote: > New, related connections are marked as such as part of ovs_ct_lookup(), > but they are not marked as "new" if the commit flag is used. Make this > consistent by treating IP_CT_RELATED as new as well. > > Reported-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> > Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> > Acked-by: Pravin B Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> > --- > v2: Acked. > --- > net/openvswitch/conntrack.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c > index 80bf702715bb..480dbb9095b7 100644 > --- a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c > +++ b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c > @@ -86,6 +86,8 @@ static u8 ovs_ct_get_state(enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo) > ct_state |= OVS_CS_F_ESTABLISHED; > break; > case IP_CT_RELATED: > + ct_state |= OVS_CS_F_NEW; > + /* Fall through */ > case IP_CT_RELATED_REPLY: > ct_state |= OVS_CS_F_RELATED; > break;
I'm probably missing something obvious. Why is the reply direction not considered NEW? Wouldn't this consider an ICMPv6 as related+new depending on simply the direction? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
