All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ipv4 regression in 2.6.31 ?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:21:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AAE5F6E.3030008@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090914171001.47371b3d.skraw@ithnet.com>

Stephan von Krawczynski a écrit :
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:57:03 +0200
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Stephan von Krawczynski a écrit :
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> today we experienced some sort of regression in 2.6.31 ipv4 implementation, or
>>> at least some incompatibility with former 2.6.30.X kernels.
>>>
>>> We have the following situation:
>>>
>>>                                        ---------- vlan1@eth0 192.168.2.1/24
>>>                                       /
>>> host A 192.168.1.1/24 eth0  -------<router>            host B
>>>                                       \
>>>                                        ---------- eth1 192.168.3.1/24
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, if you route 192.168.1.0/24 via interface vlan1@eth0 on host B and let
>>> host A ping 192.168.2.1 everything works. But if you route 192.168.1.0/24 via
>>> interface eth1 on host B and let host A ping 192.168.2.1 you get no reply.
>>> With tcpdump we see the icmp packets arrive at vlan1@eth0, but no icmp echo
>>> reply being generated neither on vlan1 nor eth1.
>>> Kernels 2.6.30.X and below do not show this behaviour.
>>> Is this intended? Do we need to reconfigure something to restore the old
>>> behaviour?
>>>
>> Asymetric routing ?
>>
>> Check your rp_filter settings
>>
>> grep . `find /proc/sys/net -name rp_filter`
>>
>> rp_filter - INTEGER
>>         0 - No source validation.
>>         1 - Strict mode as defined in RFC3704 Strict Reverse Path
>>             Each incoming packet is tested against the FIB and if the interface
>>             is not the best reverse path the packet check will fail.
>>             By default failed packets are discarded.
>>         2 - Loose mode as defined in RFC3704 Loose Reverse Path
>>             Each incoming packet's source address is also tested against the FIB
>>             and if the source address is not reachable via any interface
>>             the packet check will fail.
>>
>>         Current recommended practice in RFC3704 is to enable strict mode
>>         to prevent IP spoofing from DDos attacks. If using asymmetric routing
>>         or other complicated routing, then loose mode is recommended.
>>
>>         conf/all/rp_filter must also be set to non-zero to do source validation
>>         on the interface
>>
>>         Default value is 0. Note that some distributions enable it
>>         in startup scripts.
> 
> Problem is this:
> Kernel 2.6.30.X and below work flawlessly in this setup, only kernel 2.6.31
> acts different. Is this an intended change in policy?
> 

Here, it only depends on rp_filter settings, kernel 2.6.30 or 2.6.31

Please give your settings for further investigations, for all hosts involved.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-14 15:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-14 13:09 ipv4 regression in 2.6.31 ? Stephan von Krawczynski
2009-09-14 13:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-14 15:10   ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2009-09-14 15:21     ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-09-14 15:55   ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2009-09-14 16:10     ` Paravirtualization Richard B. Johnson
2009-09-14 16:10     ` ipv4 regression in 2.6.31 ? Eric Dumazet
2009-09-14 16:31     ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-09-15  0:01       ` Julian Anastasov
2009-09-15  8:13       ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-09-15 22:57         ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-09-16  5:23           ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-09-16 17:00             ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-09-18  8:30               ` Stephan von Krawczynski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4AAE5F6E.3030008@gmail.com \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=skraw@ithnet.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.