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:   Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:43:15 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To:     Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        coreteam@netfilter.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] net: br_netfiler_hooks: Drops IPv6 packets if
 IPv6 module is not loaded
Message-ID: <20190831084315.GU20113@breakpoint.cc>
References: <20190830181354.26279-1-leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190830181354.26279-3-leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190830205541.GR20113@breakpoint.cc>
 <2ba876f9ad6597e640df68f09659dce3c4b5ce03.camel@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2ba876f9ad6597e640df68f09659dce3c4b5ce03.camel@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > There are two solutions:
> > 1. The above patch, but use NF_ACCEPT instead
> > 2. keep the DROP, but move it below the call_ip6tables test,
> >    so that users can tweak call-ip6tables to accept packets.
> 
> Q: Does 2 mean that it will only be dropped if bridge intents to use
> host's ip6tables? Else, it will be accepted by previous if?

Yes, thats the idea: Let users decide if ipv6.disable or call-ip6tables
is more important to them.