Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:58:44 +0200
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To:     Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        coreteam@netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] netfilter: nf_tables: fib: Drop IPV6 packages if
 IPv6 is disabled on boot
Message-ID: <20190821095844.me6kscvnfruinseu@salvia>
References: <20190820005821.2644-1-leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190820053607.GL2588@breakpoint.cc>
 <793ce2e9b6200a033d44716749acc837aaf5e4e7.camel@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <793ce2e9b6200a033d44716749acc837aaf5e4e7.camel@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.