On Wednesday 03 January 2007 09:34, Martin Josefsson wrote:
quoted text
> 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 :)

quoted text
> Signed-off-by: Martin Josefsson <gandalf@wlug.westbo.se>
>
> --- 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 =3D nfct_nat(i);
> +
> +	if (!nat)
> +		return 0;
>  #endif
> -	int ret;
>
>  	read_lock_bh(&masq_lock);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NF_NAT_NEEDED

=2D-=20
=2D--------------------------------------
Malte Schr=F6der
MalteSch@gmx.de
ICQ# 68121508
=2D--------------------------------------