Hi Jamal, thanks for your help. > > So it seems like the fl->mark is never initialized with the packet mark > > in the first place. What would be the correct stage in the kernel > > network stack to do that? > > Can you try a simple setup without xfrm/ipsec and see if this reverse > path works? Was there a kernel where it worked? I just tried opening a simple tcp connection without any xfrm or other weird stuff. I just had one iptables rule in place: -t raw -A OUTPUT -d 192.168.5.200 -j MARK --set-mark 99 192.168.5.200 is the other system I open the tcp connection from. So this should mark all response packets to the client. But the moment __xfrm_lookup is called (this is where my debug printk sits), fl->mark is always 0. By chance I changed the rule over to the mangle table: -t mangle -A OUTPUT -d 192.168.5.200 -j MARK --set-mark 99 Now it works, the mark in the flow is 99! So it seems this has nothing to do with xfrm, but that the MARK target has different effects when used in raw than in mangle. I was using raw because I had to set conntrack zones too and it was more conveniant to do both in one place. Can one of the netfilter guys comment on this? Is using MARK in raw not fully supported or has known deficiencies? Kind regards, Gerd PS: sorry for the double post, had an old netfilter-devel address in my mailer. -- Address (better: trap) for people I really don't want to get mail from: jonas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
