netdev - Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:50:19 +0100
From:	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>
To:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Cc:	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>,
	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@...abit.hu>,
	Andreas Schultz <aschultz@...p10.net>, tproxy@...ts.balabit.hu,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32

Hi,

On szo, nov 28, 2009 at 10:45:57 -0500, jamal wrote:
> >  However, with your
> > change, and because of the ip rule above not being specific enough now
> > it's returning with type RTN_LOCAL, and that's considered invalid and thus
> > the skb is dropped.
> 
> Well, since we are validating a source address - only unicast routes
> are legitimate imo. i.e it was wrong to allow local before.
> 
> > 
> > The workaround is using more specific ip rules that include the ingress
> > interface name:
> > 
> > # ip rule add dev eth0 fwmark 1 lookup 100
> > 
> 
> Or adding routes into table 100 with type "unicast" would do it as
> well.

Well, the only route we're interested in is the following (see
Documentation/networking/tproxy.txt for the details):

ip route add local 0.0.0.0/0 dev lo table 100

Adding a unicast route is not really an option, so I'd say the only
workaround is modifying rules to include the ingress device names.

-- 
KOVACS Krisztian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html