[tproxy] Squid-2.6 patch
Ming-Ching Tiew
mingching.tiew at redtone.com
Tue Mar 4 05:20:30 CET 2008
Laszlo Attila Toth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gonzalo Arana wrote:
>
>> Try the patch located in http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2129
>> Please, note that this is still unofficial path. Any feedback about
>> it is much appreciated.
>>
>>
>
> Does the foreign bind work with this patch? I rewrote the patch for
> 2.6-STABLE18 and perhaps I missed something. What I see on the webserver
> is that the squid connects with its own IP address instead of the
> client's address. Config:
> http_port 3128 tproxy
>
> When the new patch will work, I publish it. The changes:
> the --enable-tproxy option is dropped, --enable-linux-netfilter is used
> only. Also both REDIRECT and TPROXY target can be used in this case. If
> the tproxy patch isn't in the kernel, it is ignored in squid.
>
>
Not answering to this post specifically however I have two
comments on squid tproxy patch :-
1. To have two different version of patches and binaries for
squid with tproxy 4.0.x and tproxy 4.1.0 is a nuisance and
administratively unfortunate. It will be great if the patch
can be one, and if there is a way to determine at runtime,
whether to pass IP_FREEBIND or IP_TRANSPARENT to
setsockopt that will be great.
The other way is to adjust the kernel patch for tproxy 4.1.0
to use IP_FREEBIND. But it seems this option has been
explored and the kernel folks disagreed with it though !
2. Removing NET_ADMIN capability for IP_FREEBIND isn't quite
necessary for :-
(A) the kernel did not enforce NET_ADMIN for IP_FREEBIND
is probably by "accident" only.
(B) it will have to be re-stored when doing IP_TRANSPARENT.
So this going back and forth is just, again administratively
unfortunate.
Regards.
More information about the tproxy
mailing list