Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 18:07 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> Right, its source validation. But the setup is valid, its asking for
> specifically marked packets to be delivered locally for transparent
> proxying. There's no requirement that rules using marks must resolve
> to RTN_UNICAST.

True, but that requirement is needed for source validation;->
i.e it is source address validation imposing the requirement
that we must have a RTN_UNICAST route. The tproxy iproute setup entered
a route that was not RTN_UNICAST. I think that the packet deserves to be
beaten with a club then dropped hard into an abyss (Feel free to come up
with  something more medievial to do to it Patrick;-> )
It doesnt make sense to have a source address that is not unicast
belonging to a host or pretending to belong to a host.
So i didnt introduce that logic thats causing this pain.
If it worked before it was hack or fluke imo ;-> If we think that
source address validation needs to check for something else
additionally, i think thats a separate topic (but doesnt
seem worth a change)

cheers,
jamal