commit 10596608c4d62cb8c1c2b806debcbd32fe657e71
author Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com> Wed Mar 08 22:54:18 2017 +0800
committer Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> Mon Mar 13 13:30:28 2017 +0100
tree 1b78903a75011a45b7b647096b1319aedb475d11
parent fd89b23a4632d3cbdee398048497e026edadfb71

netfilter: nf_tables: fix mismatch in big-endian system

Currently, there are two different methods to store an u16 integer to
the u32 data register. For example:
  u32 *dest = &regs->data[priv->dreg];
  1. *dest = 0; *(u16 *) dest = val_u16;
  2. *dest = val_u16;

For method 1, the u16 value will be stored like this, either in
big-endian or little-endian system:
  0          15           31
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   Value   |     0     |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

For method 2, in little-endian system, the u16 value will be the same
as listed above. But in big-endian system, the u16 value will be stored
like this:
  0          15           31
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     0     |   Value   |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

So later we use "memcmp(&regs->data[priv->sreg], data, 2);" to do
compare in nft_cmp, nft_lookup expr ..., method 2 will get the wrong
result in big-endian system, as 0~15 bits will always be zero.

For the similar reason, when loading an u16 value from the u32 data
register, we should use "*(u16 *) sreg;" instead of "(u16)*sreg;",
the 2nd method will get the wrong value in the big-endian system.

So introduce some wrapper functions to store/load an u8 or u16
integer to/from the u32 data register, and use them in the right
place.

Signed-off-by: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>