Re: [PATCH 02/14] tcp: fix mark propagation with fwmark_reflect enabled

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 20:19 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Right. This is not percpu as in IPv4. > > I can send a follow up patch to get this in sync with the way we do it > in IPv4, ie. add percpu socket. > > Fine with this approach? Thanks! Not really. percpu sockets are going to slow

Re: [PATCH 02/14] tcp: fix mark propagation with fwmark_reflect enabled

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:02:40AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:37 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > From: Pau Espin Pedrol > > > > Otherwise, RST packets generated by the TCP stack for non-existing > > sockets always have mark 0. > > The mark

Re: [PATCH 02/14] tcp: fix mark propagation with fwmark_reflect enabled

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:37 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > From: Pau Espin Pedrol > > Otherwise, RST packets generated by the TCP stack for non-existing > sockets always have mark 0. > The mark from the original packet is assigned to the netns_ipv4/6 > socket used to

[PATCH 02/14] tcp: fix mark propagation with fwmark_reflect enabled

From: Pau Espin Pedrol Otherwise, RST packets generated by the TCP stack for non-existing sockets always have mark 0. The mark from the original packet is assigned to the netns_ipv4/6 socket used to send the response so that it can get copied into the response skb when the