Am 04.01.2012 18:55, schrieb Bart De Schuymer:

Op 3/01/2012 21:29, Richard Weinberger schreef:

quoted

Am 03.01.2012 21:15, schrieb Bart De Schuymer:

quoted

The documentation is probably not explicit enough, but I would keep the
behavior as it is now. Setting bridge-nf-call-iptables to 0 makes
iptables behave as if bridge-netfilter was not enabled at compilation.
Anyway, your patch is almost certainly flawed since the fact that
skb->nf_bridge can be NULL is used as part of the logic in
br_netfilter.c: it indicates that bridge-nf-call-iptables was 0 when the
packet was first processed by bridge-netfilter and should therefore not
be given to iptables in any other netfilter hook.

Thanks for the explanation!

Wouldn't it make sense to check for bridge-nf-call-iptables in
xt_physdev?
So that the user gets warned that his iptables rule will never match...

We don't want to introduce module dependencies between the bridge module
and the iptables physdev match.

CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_PHYSDEV depends anyway on
CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER...

We could add a message to the syslog whenever these proc settings are
changed (in br_netfilter.c::brnf_sysctl_call_tables()).

Let's export brnf_call_iptables and brnf_call_ip6tables, such that
physdev_mt_check() can notify the user that his iptables rule will have
no effect.

Thanks,
//richard