Hi,
Sorry for my error.
The problem is the current icmp_reply and ip_send_reply will
send out packets with wrong destination address. Not wrong source
address.
My point is that we should always use the source address of packets we
received as the destination address of our reply packets.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:14:56PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ^[$B5HF#1QL@^[(B wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]> (at Mon, 17 Sep
> >2007 19:20:44 -0700 (PDT)), David Miller <[email protected]> says:
> >
> >>From: lepton <[email protected]>
> >>Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:16:17 +0800
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>> In some situation, icmp_reply and ip_send_reply will send
> >>> out packet with the wrong source addr, the following patch
> >>> will fix this.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand why we must use rt->rt_src in the current
> >>> code, if this is a wrong fix, please correct me.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Lepton Wu <[email protected]>
> >>
> >>That the address is wrong is your opinion only :-)
> >>
> >>Source address selection is a rather complex topic, and
> >>here we are definitely purposefully using the source
> >>address selected by the routing lookup for the reply.
> >
> >And, if you do think something is "wrong", you need to describe it
> >in detail, at least.
>
> I missed the beginning of the discussion, so apologies if I'm way off
> base.
>
> it sounds like the question is, when a packet hits the box that causes a
> icmp_reply (or other packet) to be generated, which IP address should be
> used as the source
>
> 1. the destination address of the packet that generated the message
>
> or.
>
> 2. the IP address that the machine would use by default if the machine
> were to generate a new connection to the destination.
>
> I understand that in many cases the historical approach has been #2, but
> as more machines get multiple IP addresses on each interface, I believe
> that it's less of a surprise to other systems if the default is #1. most
> of the time the other systems don't care (and useusally don't want to
> know) if the service they are contacting is on a dedicated machine or is
> just one IP among many sharing a box.
>
> it gets especially bad when you have load balancing going on and the
> results could come from multiple boxes.
>
> yes, sysadmins deal with this today, but it's a pain to do so and is a
> continuing dribble of suprises when things don't quite work the way you
> expect them to as you consoldate things onto more powerful systems (or
> distribute them among multiple systems).
>
> if the packet got to the machine and the machine is accepting it, replying
> back from the destination IP of that packet should be legitimate (it's
> what you would do if there was a full connection after all) and greatly
> reduces the cases where things change.
>
> David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
