On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 02:39:54AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:56:11 +1000
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > fwd_nat_from_host() (nearly) always rewrites the destination address for
> > inbound flows to the observed guest address.  Usually, that makes sense:
> > regardless of the host address to which the new flow arrived, we want to
> > direct it to the guest.  However, that clearly does not make sense for
> > multicast - it should still appear as a multicast transmission to the
> > guest.
> > 
> > In particular this can work very badly for multicast protocols which use
> > the same source and destination ports by convention (e.g. mDNS).  In this
> > case, we will attempt to forword multicast packets to our own socket,
> > causing a forwarding loop (see bug 209 for more details).
> > 
> > While it's certainly not enough to make us handle multicast correctly in
> > all circumstances, not translating multicast destinations is closer to
> > correct, and prevents bug 209 at least.
> > 
> > Link: https://bugs.passt.top/show_bug.cgi?id=209
> > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > ---
> >  fwd.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fwd.c b/fwd.c
> > index 7d39898e..e59413b6 100644
> > --- a/fwd.c
> > +++ b/fwd.c
> > @@ -1045,7 +1045,8 @@ uint8_t fwd_nat_from_host(const struct ctx *c,
> >  	tgt->eport = rule->to + (ini->oport - rule->first);
> >  	if (!inany_is_unspecified(&rule->taddr))
> >  		tgt->eaddr = rule->taddr;
> > -	else if (c->host_lo_to_ns_lo && inany_is_loopback(&ini->oaddr))
> > +	else if (inany_is_multicast(&ini->oaddr) ||
> 
> This is a bit convoluted: if one reads this commit message it makes
> sense, but if one reads just the code later it's absolutely unclear
> that this is needed to avoid the inany_is_unspecified(&tgt->eaddr)
> clause at the end of the function (mostly).
> 
> Should we add a comment? Right now I can't come up with any reasonable
> suggestion of where to place it or what to write in it, though.

Uh.. agreed on both points.  It *is* a bit convoluted, but I'm not
sure how to clarify it either.  I'm hoping it will mostly go away if
we can switch to selecting the target pif based on the rule rather
than the bespoke logic we have here.

> 
> > +		 (c->host_lo_to_ns_lo && inany_is_loopback(&ini->oaddr)))
> >  		tgt->eaddr = ini->oaddr;
> >  
> >  	/* TODO: Allow splicing with specified target address */
> 
> -- 
> Stefano
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson