[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0703091106280.8799@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:19:26 +0100 (MET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: Amin Azez <azez@...mechanic.net>
cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netfilter Developer Mailing List
<netfilter-devel@...ts.netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] chaostables
Hello,
On Mar 9 2007 09:35, Amin Azez wrote:
>* Jan Engelhardt wrote, On 08/03/07 20:26:
>> xt_portscan needs to keep track of what packets the machine has already
>> seen. So on the first SYN, the connection is marked with "1". (Then we
>> send our SYN-ACK... and the connection turns ESTABLISHED.) The next
>> packet that is received will be an ACK or an RST. But it must come
>> _exactly after_ the SYN, so just using --tcp-flags ACK will not work. A
>> state which can be remembered is required. For that, an automaton is
>> used, whose state is saved in the connection mark.
>
>There would me more point in having this as a new match if it didn't
>trample on the connection mark, but used it's own slot or flag-bit.
Adding a member to the ip_conntrack/nf_conntrack and sk_buff struct would
increase the struct sizes, and that would penalize users who do not intend
to use xt_portscan.
I do not see why the packet/connection marks should not be used to record
additional information. After all, that is what users use marks for.
xt_portscan can be precisely configured how to set its marks (mask is
supported), so that it only takes away 4 bits of the 32-bit connection
mark and 1 bit of the 32-bit packet mark.
Almost never I required connection marking myself except for this
portscanning automaton and perhaps a little MARK here and there for
finely-tuned SNAT. Again, things might look different on your side(s).
QoS, while primarily using CLASSIFY, is one point where MARK can be used.
I would assume that those who use xt_portscan should be fine with the
remaining 24 bits.
Thank you,
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists