|
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.
http://1984.lsi.us.es/git/?p=net-next-2.6/.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/pablo/nf-next-2.6-updates
--
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
|
