Discussion:
[Bug 245277] mbuf_tag PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD is not honored for host routes
b***@freebsd.org
2021-05-09 15:27:59 UTC
Permalink
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245277

Lutz Donnerhacke <***@FreeBSD.org> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version|12.2-RELEASE |11.4-STABLE
Summary|ipfw fwd tablearg does not |mbuf_tag
|honour host routes |PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD is not
| |honored for host routes
Assignee|***@FreeBSD.org |***@FreeBSD.org

--- Comment #5 from Lutz Donnerhacke <***@FreeBSD.org> ---
The analysis is similar to PR 255705.

mbuf_tag PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD is not honored for host routes (but for network
routes even /32) starting with 11.3
So you can use the network routes as a workaround.

Hence the problem is in the routing stack. I'll reclassify the bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
b***@freebsd.org
2021-05-09 16:53:34 UTC
Permalink
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245277

--- Comment #6 from ***@mx.zzux.com ---
I'm not sure that ipfw is quite innocent.
As mentioned in the 1st message there is confusion with tablearg and direct IP.




In this example 8.8.8.8 is routed via default gw, while 8.8.4.4 via
192.168.68.1

ipfw list
8 fwd tablearg ip from any to table(8)
9 fwd 169.254.1.1 ip from any to 8.8.4.4

ipfw table 8 list
8.8.8.8/32 169.254.1.1

Routing tables
Destination Gateway Flags Use Mtu Netif Expire
default 192.168.68.64 UGS 16 1500 lan1
169.254.1.1 192.168.68.1 UGHS 6 1500 lan1
192.168.68.0/24 link#1 U 76669362 1500 lan1
192.168.68.111 link#1 UHS 7 16384 lo0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
b***@freebsd.org
2021-05-09 18:58:57 UTC
Permalink
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245277

--- Comment #7 from Lutz Donnerhacke <***@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to bugs.freebsd.org from comment #6)
This is different from the discussed one.

Can you please state exactly which tests have which result at which OS release?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
b***@freebsd.org
2021-05-09 19:48:01 UTC
Permalink
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245277

--- Comment #8 from ***@mx.zzux.com ---
Yes.
This issue was first time appeared on 11.3-RELEASE and observed on 11.4-12.2.
Only the combination of IPv4, tablearg and host route is out of order, any
other works properly, also IPv6, tablearg and host route is ok.
I suspect that the bug is present on 13.0 also, but now hidden due to new bug
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=255705
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
b***@freebsd.org
2021-05-10 06:18:37 UTC
Permalink
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245277

--- Comment #9 from Lutz Donnerhacke <***@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to bugs.freebsd.org from comment #8)
The ipfw code does not do any lookup of the route table, it's only adding a tag
to the mbuf containing the packet. So if there is any difference between
handling ha host route and a network route the difference might be located in
the routeing code.

I'll try to investigate.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
b***@freebsd.org
2021-05-10 10:46:37 UTC
Permalink
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245277

Mark Linimon <***@FreeBSD.org> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.freebsd.org/bu
| |gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2557
| |05
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
Loading...