netdev - FOU RX interface?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 1 Oct 2014 22:14:02 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: FOU RX interface?

Hi-

Sorry for the lack of proper threading here -- I lost the original message.

If I'm understanding the FOU use case correctly, if I set up a FOU
tunnel tun0 that is encapsulated in UDP on eth0, then tun0 packets
will be transmitted on tun0, but incoming packets will show up on eth0
when they're reinjected after stripping the FOU header.

Is this right?  I think that, without a way to reinject the received
packets on the tunnel interface, using FOU will be annoying.  For
example, writing firewall rules might be tricky.  And programs that
use packet sockets or SO_BINDTODEVICE could have a hard time being
configured such that they notice the received packets.

Also, is it even possible to assign a FOU tunnel to a different
network namespace than the device that's being tunneled over?  How
will the received packets end up in the right netns?

--Andy
--
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