diff mbox

ipvs: restore support for iptables SNAT

Message ID 1306973394-29504-2-git-send-email-horms@verge.net.au
State Not Applicable, archived
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show

Commit Message

Simon Horman June 2, 2011, 12:09 a.m. UTC 
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

	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.

Signed-off-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
---
 net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c |   16 ++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Comments

Pablo Neira Ayuso June 2, 2011, 11:51 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 02/06/11 02:09, Simon Horman wrote:
> From: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
> 
> 	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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Simon Horman June 2, 2011, 1:01 p.m. UTC | #2 
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@ssi.bg>
> > 
> > 	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

Thanks Pablo.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c
index bfa808f..55af224 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c
@@ -1772,7 +1772,7 @@  static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 		.pf		= PF_INET,
 		.hooknum	= NF_INET_LOCAL_IN,
-		.priority	= 99,
+		.priority	= NF_IP_PRI_NAT_SRC - 2,
 	},
 	/* After packet filtering, forward packet through VS/DR, VS/TUN,
 	 * or VS/NAT(change destination), so that filtering rules can be
@@ -1782,7 +1782,7 @@  static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 		.pf		= PF_INET,
 		.hooknum	= NF_INET_LOCAL_IN,
-		.priority	= 101,
+		.priority	= NF_IP_PRI_NAT_SRC - 1,
 	},
 	/* Before ip_vs_in, change source only for VS/NAT */
 	{
@@ -1790,7 +1790,7 @@  static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 		.pf		= PF_INET,
 		.hooknum	= NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT,
-		.priority	= -99,
+		.priority	= NF_IP_PRI_NAT_DST + 1,
 	},
 	/* After mangle, schedule and forward local requests */
 	{
@@ -1798,7 +1798,7 @@  static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 		.pf		= PF_INET,
 		.hooknum	= NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT,
-		.priority	= -98,
+		.priority	= NF_IP_PRI_NAT_DST + 2,
 	},
 	/* After packet filtering (but before ip_vs_out_icmp), catch icmp
 	 * destined for 0.0.0.0/0, which is for incoming IPVS connections */
@@ -1824,7 +1824,7 @@  static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 		.pf		= PF_INET6,
 		.hooknum	= NF_INET_LOCAL_IN,
-		.priority	= 99,
+		.priority	= NF_IP6_PRI_NAT_SRC - 2,
 	},
 	/* After packet filtering, forward packet through VS/DR, VS/TUN,
 	 * or VS/NAT(change destination), so that filtering rules can be
@@ -1834,7 +1834,7 @@  static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 		.pf		= PF_INET6,
 		.hooknum	= NF_INET_LOCAL_IN,
-		.priority	= 101,
+		.priority	= NF_IP6_PRI_NAT_SRC - 1,
 	},
 	/* Before ip_vs_in, change source only for VS/NAT */
 	{
@@ -1842,7 +1842,7 @@  static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 		.pf		= PF_INET,
 		.hooknum	= NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT,
-		.priority	= -99,
+		.priority	= NF_IP6_PRI_NAT_DST + 1,
 	},
 	/* After mangle, schedule and forward local requests */
 	{
@@ -1850,7 +1850,7 @@  static struct nf_hook_ops ip_vs_ops[] __read_mostly = {
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 		.pf		= PF_INET6,
 		.hooknum	= NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT,
-		.priority	= -98,
+		.priority	= NF_IP6_PRI_NAT_DST + 2,
 	},
 	/* After packet filtering (but before ip_vs_out_icmp), catch icmp
 	 * destined for 0.0.0.0/0, which is for incoming IPVS connections */