[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1259429774.3864.41.camel@bigi>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:36:14 -0500
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc: KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>,
KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@...abit.hu>,
Andreas Schultz <aschultz@...p10.net>, tproxy@...ts.balabit.hu,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 18:07 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Right, its source validation. But the setup is valid, its asking for
> specifically marked packets to be delivered locally for transparent
> proxying. There's no requirement that rules using marks must resolve
> to RTN_UNICAST.
True, but that requirement is needed for source validation;->
i.e it is source address validation imposing the requirement
that we must have a RTN_UNICAST route. The tproxy iproute setup entered
a route that was not RTN_UNICAST. I think that the packet deserves to be
beaten with a club then dropped hard into an abyss (Feel free to come up
with something more medievial to do to it Patrick;-> )
It doesnt make sense to have a source address that is not unicast
belonging to a host or pretending to belong to a host.
So i didnt introduce that logic thats causing this pain.
If it worked before it was hack or fluke imo ;-> If we think that
source address validation needs to check for something else
additionally, i think thats a separate topic (but doesnt
seem worth a change)
cheers,
jamal
--
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