[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHBUhq8M7hr3lVLA@shredder.lan>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 16:20:06 +0300
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: Michal Soltys <msoltyspl@...dex.pl>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [BUG / question] in routing rules, some options (e.g. ipproto,
sport) cause rules to be ignored in presence of packet marks
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Michal Soltys <msoltyspl@...dex.pl> wrote:
> > On 3/29/21 10:52 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > >
> > > ip_route_me_harder() does not set source / destination port in the
> > > flow key, so it explains why fib rules that use them are not hit after
> > > mangling the packet. These keys were added in 4.17, but I
> > > don't think this use case every worked. You have a different experience?
> > >
> >
> > So all the more recent additions to routing rules - src port, dst port, uid
> > range and ipproto - are not functioning correctly with the second routing
> > check.
> >
> > Are there plans to eventually fix that ?
> >
> > While I just adjusted/rearranged my stuff to not rely on those, it should
> > probably be at least documented otherwise (presumably in ip-rule manpage and
> > perhaps in `ip rule help` as well).
>
> Fixing this would be better.
Yep.
> As Ido implies it should be enough to fully populate the flow keys in
> ip(6)_route_me_harder.
Will try to patch this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists