[PATCH] CTA_PROTO_NUM is u_int8_t not u_int16_t (was Re: CTA_PROTO_NUM u_int8_t or u_int16_t)]

[Patrick McHardy]

[Resend, my last mail was rejected by the kernel.org mailserver]

Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> The review cycle for the 2.6.14.4 was started. I can't find this fix in 
> listed patches and it seems 2.6.14 needs little different patch than 
> 2.6.15: s/size_t/int/.
> 
> Patch attached, not sure what to do with Signed-off-by lines so please 
> feel free to correct it.
> 
> Any chances for submitting it into -stable for inclusion in 2.6.14.4?

Sorry, I wanted to wait until the patch hit Linus' tree and
forgot about it. Unfortunately ctnetlink has a number of other
issues in 2.6.14 that don't fulfil the -stable requirements,
so in the end its still pretty unusable.

Anyway, this patch fixes a deadlock when dumping the conntrack
table which has already hit a number of people. Please consider
for -stable.

The patch Krzysztof attached went into 2.6.15-rc and fixes an
attribute sizes that was used inconsistently. Without this patch
compatiblity will break once we fix up the userspace side. The
first released kernel with ctnetlink was 2.6.14, so far the only
user known to me is a tool in beta-stage that lives in netfilter
SVN. We would prefer to have no incompatiblities between at least
2.6.14.x and later kernels, so is something like this acceptable
for -stable? If yes I'll send a patch that applies cleanly to
2.6.14.3.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ctnl-01.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1469 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/netfilter-devel/attachments/20051213/d9262f79/ctnl-01.bin