Re[3]: [PATCH 2/3] ipvs: Fix faulty IPv6 extension header handling in I

To: "Patrick McHardy" <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re[3]: [PATCH 2/3] ipvs: Fix faulty IPv6 extension header handling in IPVS
Cc: "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Julian Anastasov" <ja@xxxxxx>, "Simon Horman" <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wensong Zhang" <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Hans Schillstrom" <hans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:58:18 +0200 (CEST)
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>>> Based on patch from: Hans Schillstrom
>>>> IPv6 headers must be processed in order of appearance,
>>>> neither can it be assumed that Upper layer headers is first.
>>>> If anything else than L4 is the first header IPVS will throw it.
>>>> IPVS will write SNAT & DNAT modifications at a fixed pos which
>>>> will corrupt the message. Proper header position must be found
>>>> before writing modifying packet.
>>>> This patch contains a lot of API changes.  This is done, to avoid
>>>> the costly scan of finding the IPv6 headers, via ipv6_find_hdr().
>>>> Finding the IPv6 headers is done as early as possible, and passed
>>>> on as a pointer "struct ip_vs_iphdr *" to the affected functions.
>>> How about we change netfilter to set up the skb's transport header
>>> at an early time so we can avoid all (most of) these header scans
>>> in netfilter?
>> I think that would be great, maybe it should be global i.e. not only a 
>> netfilter issue.
>I think in most other cases the headers are supposed to be processed 
>sequentially. One problem though - to be useful for netfilter/IPVS
>we'd also need to store the transport layer protocol somewhere.

I guess that's the problem, adding it to the skb will not be popular ....
Right now I don't have a good solution, maybe a more generic netfilter ptr in 
the skb ...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>