[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BL2PR07MB23066ABAF5223701D17CFFF29E120@BL2PR07MB2306.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:28:22 +0000
From: Brandon Cazander <brandon.cazander@...tapplied.net>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: TPROXY and DNAT broken (bisected to 079096f103fa)
I can recreate the issue with these rules:
ip rule add fwmark 1 lookup 100
ip route add local 0.0.0.0/0 dev lo table 100
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8080 -j TPROXY --on-port 9876 --on-ip 0.0.0.0 --tproxy-mark 0x1/0x1
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 192.168.7.20/32 -i eth0 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.8.1
If I add in the DIVERT chain it works:
iptables -t mangle -N DIVERT
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m socket -j DIVERT
iptables -t mangle -A DIVERT -j MARK --set-mark 1
iptables -t mangle -A DIVERT -j ACCEPT
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8080 -j TPROXY --on-port 9876 --on-ip 0.0.0.0 --tproxy-mark 0x1/0x1
But that's still a regression in my opinion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists