public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.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 17:10:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090914171001.47371b3d.skraw@ithnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AAE4BAF.2010406@gmail.com>

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?

-- 
Regards,
Stephan

  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-14 15:14 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 [this message]
2009-09-14 15:21     ` Eric Dumazet
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=20090914171001.47371b3d.skraw@ithnet.com \
    --to=skraw@ithnet.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox