From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bourne Without Subject: Re: EPERM instead of ENETUNREACH for "to unreachable" route Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:51 +0200 Message-ID: <516C12DB.1090804@airpost.net> References: Reply-To: blackhole@airpost.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=airpost.net; h= message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mesmtp; bh=uvIJbHtb5djBrr23NFpoVJiBKmc=; b=d6XYIDFv2o8qEy7iQM p2vM2rq7v+1s/+O9YlTUEK+uUhAwt5DVz2YHM8J7RswJEjyH8sZxUqlCjEz2dfoR MgFS+9gG6WCCZvMw+Ym5+UR9O0LeO14g9PhWfEmxifb/odQ6I2dJy6EmeMOiTli1 4aG0Le/CcbLb+2U5SrUji7KpY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=uvIJbHtb5djBrr23NFpoVJ iBKmc=; b=WvJ2TknjuuAvM3OzIrQa1Jc7FIwaWxu0psoCuUIiSZdgGOF3F1txmv HiYJOkOkJUMW3NM7UIALQJgfQPHKMJN75FIYiaiI5BB868msx+/yMmTqScSMLU5G b39lT03FmBviKYJWyDb0aNujpJFwydpmedA8Tg9klYicuCVyBak0c= In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: markus lottmann Cc: netfilter@vger.kernel.org On 15.04.2013 15:28, markus lottmann wrote: [...] > In this setup the command: ping -Q 1 8.8.8.8 yields EPERM instead of the expected ENETUNREACH. Does anyone have an explanation for this? The only thing I found in a web search was that EPERM is returned if an OUTPUT rule in the filter table is dropping packets. http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=136518055130415&w=2 might answer this