From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Schultz Subject: Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:19:24 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1259137434.9191.3.camel@nienna.balabit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: tproxy@lists.balabit.hu, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jamal To: KOVACS Krisztian Return-path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.27]:20804 "EHLO ey-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760448AbZKZRTT (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:19:19 -0500 Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 4so251532eyf.19 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:19:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1259137434.9191.3.camel@nienna.balabit> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, git bisect shows that TPROXY has been broken by commit f7c6fd2465d8e6f4f89c5d1262da10b4a6d499d0, [PATCH] net: Fix RPF to work with policy routing I had a look at the patch, and it seems logical that this would break TPROXY. Andreas On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, KOVACS Krisztian wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 13:43 +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote: >> I was trying to replace a setup based on a 2.6.27.14 kernel with a >> 2.6.32-rc8 kernel and found that TPROXY is no longer working. >> >> The 2.6.27.14 kernel had the last stable tproxy patch plus some >> additional fixes (TIME_WAIT, inet_sk_flowi_flags). >> Since 2.6.32 is supposed to have working tproxy support, i dropped all patches. >> >> Now, connections to the local tproxy port no longer arrive at that port. >> From the kernel log: >> >> Nov 23 12:32:31 scg01-wiwob user.debug kernel: tproxy socket lookup: >> proto 6 ac19c4df:49175 -> c0a80208:80, lookup type: 2, sock (null) >> Nov 23 12:32:31 scg01-wiwob user.debug kernel: tproxy socket lookup: >> proto 6 ac19c4df:49175 -> c0a80208:3128, lookup type: 1, sock debae040 >> Nov 23 12:32:31 scg01-wiwob user.debug kernel: redirecting: proto 6 >> c0a80208:80 -> 00000000:3128, mark: 880400a0 >> >> >> The redirecting message is the last indication of the packet. tcpdump >> shows that no answer for the initial packet goes out and the listening >> socket it not notified either. > > I'll have a look at this. In the meantime, could you please post your > kernel config, along with a summary of the iptables & ip rules you're > using? > > Cheers, > Krisztian > >