netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 16216] New: wrong source addr of UDP packets when using policy routing

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:	Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:56:49 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Unknown <borg@....net>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 16216] New: wrong source addr of UDP packets
 when using policy routing

Okey. Did you people came into any conclusions?
Is there a patch I can test?

I tried to find 914a9ab386a288d0f22252fc268ecbc048cdcbd5
in few stable trees but was unable to.

---------- Original message ----------

From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
    bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
    borg@....net
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 16216] New: wrong source addr of UDP packets when
    using policy routing
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:43:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4C190D34.8080100@...sh.net>

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 16 juin 2010  18:46 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> 
>   
> > This is know behaviour, fwmarks don't work for source address selection
> > since before the source address is chosen, you don't even have a packet
> > which could be marked.
> >     
> 
> We know have sk->sk_mark routing (socket based), so we might change
> sk->sk_mark with appropriate iptables target when one packet is
> received... not very clean but worth to mention...
>   
That would still be too late. The proper way would be to have the application
set the socket mark.