netdev - Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/10] Implement local diversion of IPv4 skbs

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:	Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:42:52 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Ingo Oeser <netdev@...eo.de>
CC:	Balazs Scheidler <bazsi@...abit.hu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...ts.netfilter.org,
	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@...abit.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/10] Implement local diversion of IPv4 skbs

Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Patrick McHardy schrieb:
> 
>>We support bitwise use of the mark everywhere in current kernels, so
>>that shouldn't be a problem anymore.
> 
> 
> For firewall mark based policy routing to work, one must still disable 
> rp_filter, because this lookup doesn't take the mark into account[1].

If distributions wouldn't enable it by default there would be no need
to disable it again :)

> So this statement is not quite true, although I believe you are probably right 
> for this case.
> 
> BTW: This rp_filter=0 requirement isn't even officially documented 
> 	(e.g. in the LARTC).

The kernel defaults to rp_filter = 0.

> [1] But does take TOS into account for historic (???) reasons.

With TOS the assumption of symetry is a bit more realistic than
with fwmarks, but it will probably still not work properly if
you actually use routing by TOS value.
-
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