Routed VR: accept packets from related and established connections by weizhouapache · Pull Request #12986 · apache/cloudstack

weizhouapache · 2026-04-08T19:39:22Z

Description

This PR fixes #12962

the change is similar to #10970

Tested with Routed network and Routed VPC with Dynamic routing

Types of changes

Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
Build/CI
Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Major
Minor

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

Copilot

Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

weizhouapache · 2026-04-08T19:40:56Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-04-08T19:42:04Z

@weizhouapache a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

codecov · 2026-04-08T19:48:13Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 16.26%. Comparing base (6f1aa96) to head (605a7e5).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on 4.20.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.20   #12986      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     16.26%   16.26%   -0.01%     
  Complexity    13434    13434              
============================================
  Files          5665     5665              
  Lines        500530   500530              
  Branches      60787    60787              
============================================
- Hits          81411    81410       -1     
  Misses       410028   410028              
- Partials       9091     9092       +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	`4.15% <ø> (ø)`
unittests	`17.11% <ø> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

blueorangutan · 2026-04-08T20:36:55Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 17409

weizhouapache · 2026-04-08T21:47:28Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2026-04-08T21:48:04Z

@weizhouapache a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

blueorangutan · 2026-04-08T22:57:10Z

[SF] Trillian Build Failed (tid-15829)

Copilot

Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

sureshanaparti · 2026-04-09T03:34:22Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2026-04-09T03:36:03Z

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

blueorangutan · 2026-04-09T19:19:15Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-15831)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 53594 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr12986-t15831-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 141 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

DaanHoogland

clgtm

weizhouapache · 2026-04-15T08:25:49Z

@khumps
could you please verify this fix ? so we can get it into 4.22.1.0 release. thanks

kiranchavala

LGTM

Tested manually on a routed mode isolated network

Created a zone with dynamic routing enabled and an IP subnet pool configured
Created a network offering with routing mode = Dynamic and default egress policy = Deny
Deploy an isolated routed network using that offering
In the network's IPv4 Routing Firewall, add:
Ingress rule: TCP port 22 from 0.0.0.0/0
Egress rule: TCP port 22 to 0.0.0.0/0
Deploy a VM in the network
Able to SSH to the VM from an external host > works

	
Rules on the router 

	chain fw_chain_egress {
		ip saddr 0.0.0.0/0 ip daddr 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dport 22 accept
		counter packets 3 bytes 228 drop
	}

	chain fw_chain_ingress {
		ip saddr 0.0.0.0/0 ip daddr 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dport 22 accept
		counter packets 0 bytes 0 drop
	}

Remove the egress rule from the network
SSH to the VM from an external host > works

	chain fw_chain_egress {
		counter packets 0 bytes 0 drop
	}

	chain fw_chain_ingress {
		ip saddr 0.0.0.0/0 ip daddr 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dport 22 accept
		counter packets 0 bytes 0 drop
	}

Source local main commit: - 166bb4304f systemvm: allow related and established routed traffic Source Apache commits: - 1fc4cb9 Routed VR: accept packets from related and established connections (apache#12986) Change summary: - add an nftables ct state established,related accept rule when creating forward chains in CsNetfilter - leave the existing input/output ICMP allowance behavior unchanged - record Record 044 sync notes in the history document Functional impact: - prevents routed VR forward chains from dropping reply traffic that belongs to already established or related connections - improves flow continuity for routed guest traffic without widening new-connection exposure Validation: - cherry-pick from main applied cleanly on ablestack-europa with no additional manual conflict resolution - runtime/systemvm test execution has not been run yet in this environment by request

Routed VR: accept packets from related and established connections

605a7e5

boring-cyborg Bot added component:networking component:virtual-router Python Warning... Python code Ahead! labels Apr 8, 2026

weizhouapache requested a review from Copilot April 8, 2026 19:39

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

weizhouapache linked an issue Apr 8, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

[BUG] fw_chain_egress missing ct state established,related accept causes inbound TCP to fail with default egress deny on routed networks #12962

Closed

sureshanaparti requested a review from Copilot April 9, 2026 03:33

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

sureshanaparti approved these changes Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

sureshanaparti requested review from DaanHoogland and nvazquez April 10, 2026 04:03

DaanHoogland approved these changes Apr 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

DaanHoogland requested a review from winterhazel April 10, 2026 08:39

sureshanaparti added this to the 4.22.1 milestone Apr 13, 2026

sureshanaparti added this to Apache CloudStack 4.22.1 Apr 13, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Todo in Apache CloudStack 4.22.1 Apr 13, 2026

sureshanaparti moved this from Todo to In Progress in Apache CloudStack 4.22.1 Apr 13, 2026

sureshanaparti added the ready-for-testing label Apr 13, 2026

kiranchavala approved these changes Apr 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

kiranchavala added status:ready-for-merge and removed ready-for-testing labels Apr 15, 2026

sureshanaparti merged commit 1fc4cb9 into apache:4.20 Apr 15, 2026
41 of 43 checks passed

github-project-automation Bot moved this from In Progress to Done in Apache CloudStack 4.22.1 Apr 15, 2026

sureshanaparti mentioned this pull request Apr 15, 2026

[BUG] fw_chain_egress missing ct state established,related accept causes inbound TCP to fail with default egress deny on routed networks #12962

Closed

DaanHoogland deleted the 4.20-fix-routed-vr-ssh branch April 15, 2026 11:34

Conversation

weizhouapache commented Apr 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Types of changes

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weizhouapache commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Apr 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

weizhouapache commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sureshanaparti commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

DaanHoogland left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weizhouapache commented Apr 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kiranchavala left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

weizhouapache commented Apr 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Apr 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

weizhouapache commented Apr 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

kiranchavala left a comment •

edited

Loading