|
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 03:50:37PM +0100, Raphael Vallazza wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>> i wrote a very simple patch for ipvs that enables a kernel config
>>> option that allows to choose where IPVS intercepts incoming
>>> connections. These are the options:
>>> - LOCAL_IN (default: works as usual)
>>> - PRE_ROUTING (puts LVS input right after the mangle PREROUTING and
>>> before the nat PREROUTING chain)
>>
>> neat. I thought it was hard enough to move that it wouldn't be just an
>> option :-)
>
> Hehe, yes, it was pretty easy ;)
First up, thanks for the patch. Its clean and looks obviously correct.
I think we should aim to get this in 2.4.25 (I think its a bit late for
2.4.24, but perhaps it can go in there).
>> what we'd really like is ipvs hooked into the FORWARD chain. Can you
>> do this too?
>
> To be honest i don't understand the reason for hooking LVS into the
> FORWARD chain, because this way it would not get the LOCAL_IN traffic
> and at the same time it would have the same NAT problem as with the
> LOCAL_IN hook. Maybe i'm missing something, but it seems that PREROUTING
> is the best point for LVS to act like a real router, because it gets
> packets that haven't been NATed yet.
> The only negative thing is that traffic can't be filtered in a regular
> way, but using fwmark and the mangle table the user can select the
> traffic that has to be handled by LVS.
>
> If you like i can also add this option, but i'm not sure if it's really
> useful :)
I had always thought in terms of FORWARD being a good place as
a) I'm not particularly interested in LVS handling LOCAL_IN traffic,
even though that it currently all it can do and b) I hadn't considered
NAT.
But you do make some good points there, and I'm begining to think
that PREROUTING is correct.
The main thing that I would like to see is that LVS can load-balance
traffic without needing the VIP to be a local address. PREROUTING seems
to allow this, so it does look like a good idea to me.
>>> I tried it on some test boxes and it seems to work pretty well, i'll
>>> do some stress testing in the next few days. I could send you a setup
>>> example if you like...
Great.
My other techincal question was do you think it would be
possible/desirable to make it a run-time option. I'm particularly
thinking of people with distro kernels and an adversion to recompiling,
as is the case for enterprise-types.
Specifically about the patch. Below is a rediffed version that addresses
a few cosmetic problems.
* Rediffed for net-2.6.25, available from git.kernel.org.
This or its cousin net-2.6 are the trees that the patch is likely to
go through to get into the kernel.
- As a breif explanation. net-2.6.X is for new code. net-2.6 is for
bug features and orthoganal features. Your patch could probably
go into either tree.
* Whitespace
- There seem to be a few places where 8 spaces have been used instead
of a tab
- There seems to be a few places where a line ends in trailing
whitespace
- And there were a few places where random leading whistepace
was present in the diff context.
- Perhaps your local version of the code has mangled whitespace,
perhaps your mail-reader mangled it on sending, or perhaps I did
something silly at my end.
* The commenting style in LVS often doesn't follow the prefered
style for linux networking code. I believe that for multi-line
comments that is:
/* some
* text
*/
Could you provide a sign-off line as described in section 5 of
http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html ? That would be great.
Lastly, if you run your patches through ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
it will pick up a lot of trivial style errors. Which is good because
its really easy to forget something simple.
Thanks again.
--
Horms
Index: net-2.6.25/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c
===================================================================
--- net-2.6.25.orig/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c 2008-01-11 12:57:55.000000000
+0900
+++ net-2.6.25/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c 2008-01-11 13:00:09.000000000
+0900
@@ -1026,6 +1026,7 @@ ip_vs_forward_icmp(unsigned int hooknum,
static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
+#ifdef CONFIG_IP_VS_INPUT_LOCAL_IN
/* After packet filtering, forward packet through VS/DR, VS/TUN,
* or VS/NAT(change destination), so that filtering rules can be
* applied to IPVS. */
@@ -1036,6 +1037,20 @@ static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __
.hooknum = NF_INET_LOCAL_IN,
.priority = 100,
},
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_IP_VS_INPUT_PRE_ROUTING
+ /* Intercept incoming connections before DNAT and input filtering
+ * has been applied, this enables ransparent proxying on realnodes
+ * and localnode. Hook right after MANGLE and before NAT_DST.
+ */
+ static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_in_ops = {
+ .hook = ip_vs_in,
+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .pf = PF_INET,
+ .hooknum = NF_IP_PRE_ROUTING,
+ .priority = NF_IP_PRI_NAT_DST - 1,
+ },
+#endif
/* After packet filtering, change source only for VS/NAT */
{
.hook = ip_vs_out,
Index: net-2.6.25/net/ipv4/ipvs/Kconfig
===================================================================
--- net-2.6.25.orig/net/ipv4/ipvs/Kconfig 2008-01-02 16:46:53.000000000
+0900
+++ net-2.6.25/net/ipv4/ipvs/Kconfig 2008-01-11 13:02:40.000000000 +0900
@@ -24,6 +24,34 @@ menuconfig IP_VS
if IP_VS
+choice
+ prompt "IPVS incoming connection interception"
+ default IP_VS_INPUT_LOCAL_IN
+ help
+ This option sets the position at which IPVS intercepts incoming
+ connections from Netfilter. If in doubt select 'LOCAL_IN'.
+
+config IP_VS_INPUT_LOCAL_IN
+ bool "LOCAL_IN"
+ ---help---
+ After packet filtering, forward packet through VS/DR, VS/TUN,
+ or VS/NAT(change destination), so that filtering rules can be
+ applied to IPVS
+
+config IP_VS_INPUT_PRE_ROUTING
+ bool "PRE_ROUTING"
+ ---help---
+ Intercept incoming connections before DNAT and input filtering
+ has been applied, this enables ransparent proxying on realnodes
+ and localnode.
+
+ Incoming connections are intercepted right after the mangle
+ PREROUTING table and before the nat PREROUTING table. This way
+ packets are intercepted without any modifications by netfilter
+ and NAT (if required) can be done on the realservers.
+
+endchoice
+
config IP_VS_DEBUG
bool "IP virtual server debugging"
---help---
-
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
|
