From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Unknown Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 16216] New: wrong source addr of UDP packets when using policy routing Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:56:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20100616093328.0671254b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4C18FFDC.8060102@trash.net> <1276709309.2632.126.camel@edumazet-laptop> <4C190D34.8080100@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1463811584-399203403-1276855009=:2662" Cc: Eric Dumazet , Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from borg.uu3.net ([87.99.63.19]:59501 "EHLO borg.uu3.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755871Ab0FRKX7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C190D34.8080100@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1463811584-399203403-1276855009=:2662 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Okey. Did you people came into any conclusions? Is there a patch I can test? I tried to find 914a9ab386a288d0f22252fc268ecbc048cdcbd5 in few stable trees but was unable to. ---------- Original message ---------- From: Patrick McHardy To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, borg@uu3.net Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 16216] New: wrong source addr of UDP packets = when using policy routing Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:43:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4C190D34.8080100@trash.net> Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mercredi 16 juin 2010 18:46 +0200, Patrick McHardy a =E9crit : >=20 > =20 > > This is know behaviour, fwmarks don't work for source address selection > > since before the source address is chosen, you don't even have a packet > > which could be marked. > > =20 >=20 > We know have sk->sk_mark routing (socket based), so we might change > sk->sk_mark with appropriate iptables target when one packet is > received... not very clean but worth to mention... > =20 That would still be too late. The proper way would be to have the applicati= on set the socket mark. ---1463811584-399203403-1276855009=:2662--