linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x_tables: Use also dev->ifalias for interface matching

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]

Message-ID: <20150112172257.GG17329@acer.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:22:57 +0000
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Patrick Schaaf <netdev@....de>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, davem@...emloft.net,
	coreteam@...filter.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	bhutchings@...arflare.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, vyasevic@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
	vfalico@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, jmorris@...ei.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, pablo@...filter.org, kay@...y.org,
	stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x_tables: Use also dev->ifalias for interface
 matching

On 12.01, Patrick Schaaf wrote:
> On Monday 12 January 2015 08:51:54 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 17:39 +0100, Patrick Schaaf wrote:
> > > 
> > > Not to comment on the ifalias thing, which I think is unneccessary,
> > > too, but matching on interface names instead of only ifindex, is
> > > definitely needed, so that one can establish a full ruleset before
> > > interfaces even exist. That's good practise at boottime, but also
> > > needed for dynamic interface creation during runtime.
> > 
> > Please do not send html messages : Your reply did not reach the lists.
> 
> Sigh. Sorry...
> 
> > Then, all you mention could have been solved by proper userspace
> > support.
> > 
> > Every time you add an interface or change device name, you could change
> > firewalls rules if needed. Nothing shocking here.
> 
> That is totally impractical, IMO.
> 
> Interfaces come and go through many different actions. There's the admin 
> downing and upping stuff like bridges or bonds. There's stuff like libvirt / 
> KVM / qemu creating and destroying interfaces. In all these cases, in my 
> practise, I give the interfaces useful names to that I can prefix-match them 
> in iptables rules.
> 
> Dynamically modifying the ruleset for each such creation and destruction, 
> would be a huge burden. The base ruleset would need suitable "hooks" where 
> these rules were inserted (ordering matters!). The addition would hardly be 
> atomic (with traditional iptables, unless done by generating a whole new 
> ruleset and restoring). The programs (e.g. libvirt) would need to be able to 
> call out to these specially crafted rule generator scripts. The admin would 
> need to add them as pre/post actions to their static (manual) interface 
> configuration. Loading and looking at the ruleset before bringing up the 
> interface would be impossible.

devgroups seem like the best solution for this.
--
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/