On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 07:23:55PM +1000, Simon Horman wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:07:40AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday 2009-04-28 10:15, Simon Horman wrote: >> > > >> > >It seems to me that it should be easy enough to fix by changing >> > >fwmark in ip_vs_sched_persist() from: >> > > >> > >union nf_inet_addr fwmark = { >> > > .all = { 0, 0, 0, htonl(svc->fwmark) } >> > >}; >> > > >> > >to: >> > > >> > >union nf_inet_addr fwmark = { >> > > .all = { htonl(svc->fwmark), 0, 0, 0 } >> > >}; >> > > >> > >Assuming that this would result in fwmark->ip being set to >> > >htonl(svc->fwmark), which is relevant if svc->af is AF_INET - that is, >> > >for IPv4.[...] >> > >An alternate idea would be to change the af value used for fwmarks, >> > >but this seems to be even less clean than the current (slightly broken) >> > >technique of using nf_inet_addr for IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, or fwmarks. >> > >> > If you use ->all, then using NFPROTO_UNSPEC as af >> > seems to me like a good match. > > I am guessing that AF_UNSPEC is more appropriate than NFPROTO_UNSPEC. > Please correct me if I am wrong. > >> That seems reasonable, though ip_vs_ct_in_get() would still >> need to use the real af for the cp->af == af and >> ip_vs_addr_equal(af, s_addr, &cp->caddr) portinos of the check. > > It looks like checking for proto == IPPROTO_IP can tell us if > the destination is a fwmark. This is based on the assumption that > iph.protocol can never be IPPROTO_IP in ip_vs_sched_persist(). > > The following patch expresses these ideas as they crrently stand. > Fabien, is it possible for you to test this? > > Index: net-next-2.6/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c > =================================================================== > --- net-next-2.6.orig/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c 2009-04-28 20:37:48.000000000 +1000 > +++ net-next-2.6/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c 2009-04-28 20:37:51.000000000 +1000 > @@ -260,7 +260,10 @@ struct ip_vs_conn *ip_vs_ct_in_get > list_for_each_entry(cp, &ip_vs_conn_tab[hash], c_list) { > if (cp->af == af && > ip_vs_addr_equal(af, s_addr, &cp->caddr) && > - ip_vs_addr_equal(af, d_addr, &cp->vaddr) && > + /* protocol should only be IPPROTO_IP if > + * d_addr is a fwmark */ > + ip_vs_addr_equal(protocol == IPPROTO_IP ? AF_UNSPEC : af, > + d_addr, &cp->vaddr) && > s_port == cp->cport && d_port == cp->vport && > cp->flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_TEMPLATE && > protocol == cp->protocol) { > @@ -698,7 +701,9 @@ ip_vs_conn_new(int af, int proto, const > cp->cport = cport; > ip_vs_addr_copy(af, &cp->vaddr, vaddr); > cp->vport = vport; > - ip_vs_addr_copy(af, &cp->daddr, daddr); > + /* proto should only be IPPROTO_IP if d_addr is a fwmark */ > + ip_vs_addr_copy(proto == IPPROTO_IP ? AF_UNSPEC : af, > + &cp->daddr, daddr); > cp->dport = dport; > cp->flags = flags; > spin_lock_init(&cp->lock); > Index: net-next-2.6/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c > =================================================================== > --- net-next-2.6.orig/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c 2009-04-28 20:37:48.000000000 +1000 > +++ net-next-2.6/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c 2009-04-28 20:37:51.000000000 +1000 > @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ ip_vs_sched_persist(struct ip_vs_service > */ > if (svc->fwmark) { > union nf_inet_addr fwmark = { > - .all = { 0, 0, 0, htonl(svc->fwmark) } > + .ip = htonl(svc->fwmark) > }; > > ct = ip_vs_ct_in_get(svc->af, IPPROTO_IP, &snet, 0, > @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ ip_vs_sched_persist(struct ip_vs_service > */ > if (svc->fwmark) { > union nf_inet_addr fwmark = { > - .all = { 0, 0, 0, htonl(svc->fwmark) } > + .ip = htonl(svc->fwmark) > }; > > ct = ip_vs_conn_new(svc->af, IPPROTO_IP, Looks good to me, without being able to test it now. I earlier mentioned also changing __ip_vs_conn_in_get(), but now realized that the problem exists only during connection template lookup, not for regular connections. Julius -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html