linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net/icmp: restore source address if packet is NATed

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: <CAHmME9pJ3bFR+hk6zb71SYzgamy7qHS7TY20qdw3EcCHp5Ghsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2017 00:52:09 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/icmp: restore source address if packet is NATed

Hi David,

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 5:49 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> This violates things on so many levels.

Yes, indeed.

> I think this kind of thing need to be hidden inside of netfilter,
> it can do the rate limiting and stuff like that in the spot
> where it makes the transformation and knows all of the original
> addressing and ports.

Indeed I'd prefer that, and I'll look again into trying to make that
work. But when I tried last, it seemed like there were some
insurmountable challenges. With the ratelimiting, the limit has
already been applied to one IP -- the masqueraded one -- before
netfilter even has a chance to act -- so that IP will already hit the
ratelimits well before any additional one inside netfilter would. Then
the issue of transformation: last I looked it seemed like icmp_send
threw away a bit too much information to do the transformation
entirely correctly, but I could be wrong, so I'll give it another
look. Hopefully it winds up being as easy as just reverse-transforming
ICMP's payload IP header.

>
> You definitely can't just rewrite header fields here either.  The
> SKB could be shared, for example.

I was afraid of that. It's easy to rework this particular patch,
though, if you're still interested in the crufty bolt on approach...
But I think I should investigate the netfilter-only approach instead,
as you suggested.

Jason