From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ric Wheeler Subject: Re: Re-routing packets via netfilter (ip_rt_bug) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:27:45 -0400 Message-ID: <42D65A41.7070403__33785.859301179$1121344546$gmane$org@emc.com> References: <4151C0F9B9C25C47B3328922A6297A3286CFB8@post.arx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Yair Itzhaki , netdev@oss.sgi.com, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Chitrapu, Kishore" , "Mellors, Andrew" Return-path: To: Patrick McHardy , Herbert Xu , Jozsef Kadlecsik In-Reply-To: <4151C0F9B9C25C47B3328922A6297A3286CFB8@post.arx.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick, Hebert, This issues stills seems to be in the latest trees - is this patch or a variation on it still bumping around? Thanks! Yair Itzhaki wrote: >Can anyone propose a patch that I can start checking? > >I have come up with the following: > >--- net/core/netfilter.c.orig 2005-04-18 21:55:30.000000000 +0300 >+++ net/core/netfilter.c 2005-05-02 17:35:20.000000000 +0300 >@@ -622,9 +622,10 @@ > /* some non-standard hacks like ipt_REJECT.c:send_reset() can cause > * packets with foreign saddr to appear on the NF_IP_LOCAL_OUT hook. > */ >- if (inet_addr_type(iph->saddr) == RTN_LOCAL) { >+ if ((inet_addr_type(iph->saddr) == RTN_LOCAL) || >+ (inet_addr_type(iph->daddr) == RTN_LOCAL)) { > fl.nl_u.ip4_u.daddr = iph->daddr; >- fl.nl_u.ip4_u.saddr = iph->saddr; >+ fl.nl_u.ip4_u.saddr = 0; > fl.nl_u.ip4_u.tos = RT_TOS(iph->tos); > fl.oif = (*pskb)->sk ? (*pskb)->sk->sk_bound_dev_if : 0; > #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK > >Please advise, >Yair > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Patrick McHardy [mailto:kaber@trash.net] >>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 14:05 >>To: Herbert Xu >>Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik; netdev@oss.sgi.com; >>netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org; Yair Itzhaki; >>linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>Subject: Re: Re-routing packets via netfilter (ip_rt_bug) >> >> >>Herbert Xu wrote: >> >> >>>Here is another reason why these packets should go through FORWARD. >>>They were generated in response to packets in INPUT/FORWARD/OUTPUT. >>>The original packet has not undergone SNAT in any of these cases. >>> >>>However, if we feed the response packet through LOCAL_OUT it will >>>be subject to DNAT. This creates a NAT asymmetry and we may end >>>up with the wrong destination address. >>> >>>By pushing it through FORWARD it will only undergo SNAT which is >>>correct since the original packet would have undergone DNAT. >>> >>> >>This is only a problem since the recent NAT changes, but I agree >>that we should fix it by moving these packets to FORWARD. >> >>Regards >>Patrick >> >> >> > > >