netdev - Re: [patch] ipvs: fwmark services don't have ports

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091207084800.GA9529@verge.net.au>
Date:	Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:48:00 +1100
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Deon van der Merwe <dvdm@...teq.co.za>,
	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] ipvs: fwmark services don't have ports

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 02:55:05PM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
> Make sure that the port for fwmark services is always zero, it seems that
> in some cases ipvsadm provides bogus port values for fwmark services.  As
> observed by Deon van der Merwe, this manifests as a clients not being able
> to connect to the virtual service if persistence is set.
> 
> Tested-by: Deon van der Merwe <dvdm@...teq.co.za>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
> 
> --- 
> 
> I believe that this fixes a bug and as such is suitable for -stable.
> However, Its taken a few release for anyone to bring this to our attention,
> so it doesn't seem to be causing much pain in the wild.
> 
> Discussion of this problem:
> http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2009-11/msg00043.html

Sorry for the noise. Please hold on this.
There is still not consensus in the original thread.

--
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