On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 15:22:30 +0200, f...@strlen.de wrote: > Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladk...@ravellosystems.com> wrote: > > I'd appreciate any suggestion how to determine traffic is local OTHER > > THAN testing IPSKB_FORWARDED; If we have such a way, there wouldn't be an > > impact on local traffic. > > > > > What about setting IPCB FORWARD flag in iptunnel_xmit if > > > skb->skb_iif != 0... instead? > > > > Can you please elaborate? > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_tunnel_core.c b/net/ipv4/ip_tunnel_core.c > --- a/net/ipv4/ip_tunnel_core.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_tunnel_core.c > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ void iptunnel_xmit(struct sock *sk, struct rtable *rt, > struct sk_buff *skb, > struct net_device *dev = skb->dev; > struct iphdr *iph; > int err; > + bool fwd = skb->skb_iif > 0; > > skb_scrub_packet(skb, xnet); > > @@ -72,6 +73,9 @@ void iptunnel_xmit(struct sock *sk, struct rtable *rt, > struct sk_buff *skb, > skb_dst_set(skb, &rt->dst); > memset(IPCB(skb), 0, sizeof(*IPCB(skb))); > > + if (fwd) > + IPCB(skb)->flags = IPSKB_FORWARDED; > +
Thanks. OK with the general idea; However I don't want to abuse IPSKB_FORWARDED as the skb is not really "ip forwarded", and it might have undesirable affects, such as in 'ip_skb_dst_mtu' which follows. How about a new IPSKB bit flag, say IPSKB_TUNNEL_FORWARDED, or a different way of marking? Regards, Shmulik
