netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Conntrack leak (2.6.2rc2)

To: Steve Hill <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Conntrack leak (2.6.2rc2)
From: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:20:37 +0100
Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402021039540.5347@sorbus2.navaho>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0402021121540.6508-100000@blackhole.kfki.hu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402021039540.5347@sorbus2.navaho>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:48:08AM +0000, Steve Hill wrote:

> If fragmented packets do not lead to conntrack entries, how are their 
> connections tracked?  I was under the impression that fragmented packets 
> were received by one NIC, defragged, pushed through all the netfilter code 
> and then transmitted by another NIC (after being fragmented again if they 
> are > MTU size)?

Yes, this is indeed the case.  Whihc is not a contradiction to what
Jozsef said.  They are defragmented before getting passed to conntrack,
and thus look exactly the same like unfragmented packets throughout the
network stack (until NF_IP_POST_ROUTING).

> Machines 1 and 3 are running the 2.4 kernel for me, but that shouldn't be 
> important.
> Machine 2 is running 2.6.2rc2.
> I am making > MTU sized pings from machine 1 to machine 3 and machine 2 is 
> showing the leak.

Are you running any netfilter / networking related patches?  Anything
else special about the setup?

> - Steve Hill
> Senior Software Developer                        Email: steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>               http://www.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support it your lifetime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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