Re: [lvs-users] FWMARKs and persistence

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] FWMARKs and persistence
From: Fabien Duchêne <fabien.duchene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:14:40 +0200
Simon Horman a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:43:18AM +0200, Fabien Duchêne wrote:
> [snip]
>> Hello Simon,
> Hi Fabien,
>> I made the same fix and tested it for 4 days, it seem to be stable.
> Thanks, that is very useful information.

For information, I used slamd to inject HTTP/S and LDAP load.
I tested with and without the fix, no any significant difference (20 tests).

> Does this ensure that the trailing 3 octets of .all and .ip6 are 0?

No, you're right, they are uninitialized, and this shouldn't be the same.
In fact, I thought about using all[0] (so exactly your solution), but
when I saw ->ip working I stopped (lazy man, I know).
Your solution is much cleaner, I will test it ASAP.

> I haven't run any tests to confirm the problem, but I am a Dev,
> so I can get it fixed :-)

> I am a little concerned that this fix may not be correct in
> some bizzare case where the packing means that .ip, .ip6[0] and
> .all[0] are not the same thing.
> I have sent an email to lvs-devel and netfilter-devel to try
> and get some discussion on this. The subject of that email is
> "[bug] FWMARKs and persistence in IPVS: The Use of Unions".

I just subscribe to this list to see what's going on..

Btw, thanks for your help!

Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to

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