From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org  Sat May 21 19:54:05 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F255B452AB
 for <freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 19:54:05 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu)
Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 180C81760
 for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 19:54:05 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu)
Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.87 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <lists@opsec.eu>)
 id 1b4CyM-000ArX-F0; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:54:06 +0200
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:54:06 +0200
From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu>
To: Max <maximos@als.nnov.ru>
Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Bug 201519
Message-ID: <20160521195406.GO15034@home.opsec.eu>
References: <deb597cf-0c92-3d77-38f6-a03120f7e3ad@als.nnov.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <deb597cf-0c92-3d77-38f6-a03120f7e3ad@als.nnov.ru>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter
 \(pf\)" <freebsd-pf.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-pf>,
 <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf>,
 <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 19:54:05 -0000

Hi!

> I have patched and tested "case IPPROTO_UDP".  It works. Other cases 
> should work too I think.
> 
> It's against releng/10.3
> --- sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c.orig    2016-05-21 17:57:29.420602000 +0300
> +++ sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c 2016-05-21 18:01:09.119724000 +0300
> @@ -4866,8 +4866,7 @@ pf_test_state_icmp(struct pf_state **sta
>                                      &nk->addr[pd2.didx], pd2.af) ||
>                                      nk->port[pd2.didx] != uh.uh_dport)
>                                          pf_change_icmp(pd2.dst, 
> &uh.uh_dport,
> -                                           NULL, /* XXX Inbound NAT? */
> - &nk->addr[pd2.didx],
> +                                           saddr, &nk->addr[pd2.didx],
>                                              nk->port[pd2.didx], &uh.uh_sum,
>                                              pd2.ip_sum, icmpsum,
>                                              pd->ip_sum, 1, pd2.af);
> 

Can you add this patch to the PR you mention ?

-- 
pi@opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         4 years to go !