[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200705301138.29582@nienna>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:38:28 +0200
From: KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@...abit.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: ja@....bg, kaber@...sh.net, horms@...ge.net.au,
jkrzyszt@....icnet.pl, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [IPV4] LVS: Allow to send ICMP unreachable responses when real-servers are removed
Hi,
On Friday 18 May 2007 11:05, David Miller wrote:
> From: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 11:40:54 +0300 (EEST)
>
> > On Thu, 17 May 2007, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > > In any case some better solution than the current one needs to be
> > > found, allowing users to send spoofed packets is far worse than
> > > using a non-desired source address for ICMP packets.
> >
> > yes, I would prefer the sysctl_ip_nonlocal_bind change to be
> > removed until such solution is found.
>
> Ok, I'll revert it.
I'm just about to publish the next round of tproxy patches (with the
routing code modifications completely removed), but this issue is still
present.
I've posted a few patches making omitting this check possible
selectively back in March. Do those changes look acceptable?
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=117310979823297&w=3
And the related socket layer changes:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=117310979815374&w=3
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=117310979902806&w=3
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=117310980027541&w=3
--
Regards,
Krisztian Kovacs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists