On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:51:27PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On 02/06/11 02:09, Simon Horman wrote:
> > From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
> > Fix the IPVS priority in LOCAL_IN hook,
> > so that SNAT target in POSTROUTING is supported for IPVS
> > traffic as in 2.6.36 where it worked depending on
> > module load order.
> > Before 2.6.37 we used priority 100 in LOCAL_IN to
> > process remote requests. We used the same priority as
> > iptables SNAT and if IPVS handlers are installed before
> > SNAT handlers we supported SNAT in POSTROUTING for the IPVS
> > traffic. If SNAT is installed before IPVS, the netfilter
> > handlers are before IPVS and netfilter checks the NAT
> > table twice for the IPVS requests: once in LOCAL_IN where
> > IPS_SRC_NAT_DONE is set and second time in POSTROUTING
> > where the SNAT rules are ignored because IPS_SRC_NAT_DONE
> > was already set in LOCAL_IN.
> > But in 2.6.37 we changed the IPVS priority for
> > LOCAL_IN with the goal to be unique (101) forgetting the
> > fact that for IPVS traffic we should not walk both
> > LOCAL_IN and POSTROUTING nat tables.
> > So, change the priority for processing remote
> > IPVS requests from 101 to 99, i.e. before NAT_SRC (100)
> > because we prefer to support SNAT in POSTROUTING
> > instead of LOCAL_IN. It also moves the priority for
> > IPVS replies from 99 to 98. Use constants instead of
> > magic numbers at these places.
> I have applied this to my net-next-2.6 tree. Once it hits linus tree,
> I'll pass it to -stable.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html