Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:24:04 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: luigi@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NAT broken in -CURRENT Message-ID: <20091226222404.GA11164@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912261705180.87011@creme-brulee.marcuscom.com> References: <1261859138.1555.26.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20091226212104.GA10498@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912261705180.87011@creme-brulee.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 05:06:48PM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc > > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > >On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 03:25:38PM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > >... > >>I updated my -CURRENT box yesterday. After a reboot, NAT no longer > >>works. That is, if I have natd running with ipfw diverting packets to > >>it, the box is a big black hole. No packets leave. I do see all > >... > >>I have a feeling the new ipfw code merged ~ 11 days ago is the cause of > >>the problem. Thinking that perhaps the new modularity is causing this > >>problem, I also added the following two options to my kernel: > >> > >>options IPFIREWALL_NAT > >>options LIBALIAS > >> > >>They did not help. I have not tried using a purely modular ipfw/NAT > >>combination, but I will attempt that later today. I didn't see anything > >>obvious in UPDATING. Any suggestions, or any recommendations for > >>specific troubleshooting data to capture? Thanks. > > > >the changes were not expected to affect configuration or operation > >so clearly i must have broken something in the reinjection process. > >If you have a chance of looking at the ipfw counters (to see whether > >packets are reinjected and where they end up) that would be helpful. > >I'll try to run some tests here tomorrow or more likely on monday. > > The packets appear to be looping to the divert socket. The ipfw counters > show the divert rule is growing exponentially where as the other rules > have virtually no packet matches. This is just after a few seconds of > uptime: ok then try this change in netinet/ipfw/ip_fw2.c near line 1176 IPFW_RUNLOCK(chain); return (IP_FW_DENY); /* invalid */ } - f_pos = ipfw_find_rule(chain, skipto, 0); + f_pos = ipfw_find_rule(chain, skipto+1, 0); } } Let me know if it works so i can commit it. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091226222404.GA11164>