[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f847c820809220639y609470b6x9b2602cba24a0589@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:39:59 +0200
From: "Raúl Hernández" <rauhersu@...il.com>
To: "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <rdenis@...phalempin.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: routing PF_PACKET sockets
Thanks Remi,
Just to clarify it a bit more; Suppose that a user app has two
PF_PACKET sockets (SOCK_RAW) over eth0 and eth1 (to ensure redundancy)
to send data to the network. In case eth0 is down, it would be
useless, for example, move the routing table entries which reference
eth0 to eth1 as the app which sends data to the network bypasses any
routing policy (I think this would do if my app used standard tcp
sockets).
Right ?
Best regards,
Raúl
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Rémi Denis-Courmont
<rdenis@...phalempin.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:10:54 +0200, "Raúl Hernández" <rauhersu@...il.com>
> wrote:
>> I am trying to understand the possible options on dealing with
>> PF_PACKET and routing schemas: does the packet bypass the linux
>> routing table (as it is opened directly over a 'dev').
>
> Yes, by design.
>
>> Might this behaviour be configurable ?
>
> No. Use raw sockets from the adequate protocol family, if you want to
> inject packets into the network layer.
>
> --
> Rémi Denis-Courmont
>
>
--
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature nor do
the children of man as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no
safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring
adventure, or nothing - Helen Keller
--
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