Subject: Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32

From: KOVACS Krisztian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:50:19 +0100

Hi,

On szo, nov 28, 2009 at 10:45:57 -0500, jamal wrote:
> >  However, with your
> > change, and because of the ip rule above not being specific enough now
> > it's returning with type RTN_LOCAL, and that's considered invalid and thus
> > the skb is dropped.
> 
> Well, since we are validating a source address - only unicast routes
> are legitimate imo. i.e it was wrong to allow local before.
> 
> > 
> > The workaround is using more specific ip rules that include the ingress
> > interface name:
> > 
> > # ip rule add dev eth0 fwmark 1 lookup 100
> > 
> 
> Or adding routes into table 100 with type "unicast" would do it as
> well.

Well, the only route we're interested in is the following (see
Documentation/networking/tproxy.txt for the details):

ip route add local 0.0.0.0/0 dev lo table 100

Adding a unicast route is not really an option, so I'd say the only
workaround is modifying rules to include the ingress device names.

-- 
KOVACS Krisztian