| To: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [netfilter-core] [NETFILTER] Apply IPsec to ipt_REJECT packets |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:19:01 +1100 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <41A3AF41.4010700@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20041123084225.GA3514@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41A37EC0.8010901@xxxxxxxxx> <20041123211630.GA9805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41A3AF41.4010700@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:44:33PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > No. ip_forward handles the original packet, not the packet generated > by ipt_REJECT. RSTs generated in NF_IP_FORWARD are routed using > ip_route_input because they have a non-local source, so xfrm_route_forward > or xfrm_lookup needs to be called for them. You're absolutely right. How about this patch then? Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Now I'm puzzled as to how I haven't noticed this behaviour before. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [netfilter-core] [NETFILTER] Apply IPsec to ipt_REJECT packets, Patrick McHardy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [patch] e100: early reset fix, Venkatesan, Ganesh |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [netfilter-core] [NETFILTER] Apply IPsec to ipt_REJECT packets, Patrick McHardy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [netfilter-core] [NETFILTER] Apply IPsec to ipt_REJECT packets, Patrick McHardy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |