[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150409212144.GH20653@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 23:21:44 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: fw@...len.de, eric.dumazet@...il.com, sebastian.poehn@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [FYI] xfrm: Don't lookup sk_policy for timewait sockets
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:14:41 +0200
>
> > I re-introduced this in fd158d79d33d3c under the assumption
> > that the input path handles skb->sk timewait sockets correctly
> > after all the early demux changes, afaics tcp edemux can also
> > assign skb->sk timewait sockets.
> >
> > Also, reporter mentions 3.8 as affected which should not assign
> > tw sockets to skb->sk.
> >
> > Even more strange, the reporters backtrace seems to indicate
> > crash at end of forward path.
> >
> > Sebastian, can you disable tw assignment via TPROXY in 3.12 just
> > to see if it makes a difference?
> >
> > [ not doing the assignment is safe provided you still set tproxy mark
> > on the skb; policy routing will ensure local delivery ].
>
> My assumption in my analysis is that TPROXY writes the socket to
> skb->sk, and it is also being forwarded. And yes this is based
> upon his backtrace.
Right. However, I think we might have to make more changes than just tproxy.
If we have sockets bound to non-local addresses then why would tcp edemux
not cause same issue?
--
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