From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44833C433DF for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:05:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E37D206F1 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:05:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388099AbgEZRFf (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2020 13:05:35 -0400 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:56568 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726930AbgEZRFf (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2020 13:05:35 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E772EB60CB for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 19:05:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC49FDA71A for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 19:05:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id B23BFDA709; Tue, 26 May 2020 19:05:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98742DA715; Tue, 26 May 2020 19:05:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Tue, 26 May 2020 19:05:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (unknown [90.77.255.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77FCE42EF42C; Tue, 26 May 2020 19:05:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 19:05:31 +0200 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Phil Sutter Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [iptables PATCH] doc: libxt_MARK: OUTPUT chain is fine, too Message-ID: <20200526170531.GA17094@salvia> References: <20200519230822.15290-1-phil@nwl.cc> <20200526170050.GA16695@salvia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200526170050.GA16695@salvia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 07:00:50PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:08:22AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > In order to route packets originating from the host itself based on > > fwmark, mangle table's OUTPUT chain must be used. Mention this chain as > > alternative to PREROUTING. > > > > Fixes: c9be7f153f7bf ("doc: libxt_MARK: no longer restricted to mangle table") > > Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter > > --- > > extensions/libxt_MARK.man | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/extensions/libxt_MARK.man b/extensions/libxt_MARK.man > > index 712fb76f7340c..b2408597e98f1 100644 > > --- a/extensions/libxt_MARK.man > > +++ b/extensions/libxt_MARK.man > > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > > This target is used to set the Netfilter mark value associated with the packet. > > It can, for example, be used in conjunction with routing based on fwmark (needs > > -iproute2). If you plan on doing so, note that the mark needs to be set in the > > -PREROUTING chain of the mangle table to affect routing. > > +iproute2). If you plan on doing so, note that the mark needs to be set in > > +either the PREROUTING or the OUTPUT chain of the mangle table to affect routing. > > You have two choices: > > * Set the mark in filter OUTPUT chain => it does not affect routing. > * Set the mark in the mangle OUTPUT chain => it _does_ affect routing. > > Are we on the same page? Ah, I right I just re-read and it looks fine.