netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/9] netfilter: nf_nat: support user-specified SNAT rules in LOCAL

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, 02 Jul 2010 14:35:53 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] netfilter: nf_nat: support user-specified SNAT rules
 in LOCAL_IN

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2010-07-02 12:17, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>   
>>> I still have not grasped why SNAT is needed in the INPUT path. For the
>>> tunnel scenario that you wanted to build I could not find a reason to
>>> do SNAT in that place - since the non-encapsulated packets don't go
>>> through INPUT anyway.
>>>       
>> Sure they do, if they are destined for the host itself. I'm not sure
>> what's so hard to understand about this patch, you have f.i. multiple
>> tunnels using the same remote network, on INPUT and POSTROUTING you SNAT
>> them to seperate networks based on criteria like the network device or
>> the IPsec tunnel to be able to distinguish them.
>>     
>
> But they are already distinguishable by the ctmark that is applied
> to these connections to do routing of the reply, are they not?
>   

Its not (only) about routing, you simply can't have two connections using
the same identity.
--
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