netdev - Re: [v12 PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new target for HASH based fwmark

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:	Tue, 8 May 2012 09:37:35 +0200
From:	Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
CC:	"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"jengelh@...ozas.de" <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"hans@...illstrom.com" <hans@...illstrom.com>
Subject: Re: [v12 PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new target for HASH based fwmark

On Monday 07 May 2012 14:22:32 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 02:09:46PM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > On Monday 07 May 2012 13:56:12 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > > > > > We have plenty of rules where just source port mask is zero.
> > > > > > and the dest-port-mask is 0xfffc (or 0xffff)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 0xffff and 0x0000 means on/off respectively.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Still curious, how can 0xfffc be useful?
> > > > 
> > > > That's a special case where an appl is using 4 ports.
> > > > But in general, have not seen other than "on/off" except for above.
> > > 
> > > I see. Well I'm fine with this way to switch on/off things, just
> > > wanted some clafication.
> > > 
> > > Still one final thing I'd like to remove before inclusion:
> > > 
> > > +       union hmark_ports       port_mask;
> > > +       union hmark_ports       port_set;
> > > +       __u32                   spi_mask;
> > > +       __u32                   spi_set;
> > > 
> > > the spi_mask seems redundant. The port_mask already provides u32 for
> > > it.
> > 
> > No problems, I'll remove it.
> 

Done,

> OK. As a nice side-effect, this will lead to removing the branch that
> tests ESP/AH in hmark_set_tuple_ports.

Yes,

[snip]
> remove all trailing _OR
> rename all _AND by _MASK.
Done

[snip]
> iptables can stop this by spotting a warning message from user-space.
Done.


-- 
Regards
Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>

View attachment "0001-netfilter-add-xt_hmark-target-for-hash-based-skb-mar.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (14010 bytes)

View attachment "0001-netfilter-userspace-part-for-target-HMARK.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (22855 bytes)