[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45ACD0E4.2070908@trash.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:19:32 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@...abit.hu>
CC: netfilter-devel@...ts.netfilter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Balazs Scheidler <bazsi@...abit.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/10] Implement local diversion of IPv4 skbs
KOVACS Krisztian wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 13:19, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>> Of course it's true that doing early lookups and storing that
>>>reference in the skb widens the window considerably, but I think this
>>>race is already handled. Or is there anything I don't see?
>>
>>You're right, it seems to be handled properly (except I think there is
>>a race between sk_common_release calling xfrm_sk_free_policy and f.e.
>>udp calling __xfrm_policy_check, will look into that).
>>
>>It probably shouldn't be cached anyway, with nf_queue for example
>>the window could be _really_ large.
>
>
> Patrick, I seem to be out of ideas how this could be done
> without "caching" the socket lookup. The problem is that it's not only
> caching in some cases. For example we can do something like this:
>
> iptables -t tproxy -A PREROUTING -s X -d Y -p tcp --dport 80 \
> -j TPROXY --to proxy_ip:proxy_port
>
> In this case the TPROXY target does a socket lookup for
> proxy_ip:proxy_port and stores that socket reference in skb->sk.
> Obviously if you don't do this then TCP will do a lookup on the packet's
> original destination address/port and it won't work.
>
> Unfortunately I don't see any way how this could be solved without
> storing the result of the lookup... So while I agree that having that
> socket reference in the skb is risky, as previously skb->sk was unused on
> the input path, I simply don't have any other idea. (Unless your load
> iptable_tproxy skb->sk==NULL on input is still true with these patches,
> so I think there should be absolutely no problems with tproxy unused.)
One (not very pretty) possibility would be to store the address/port
somewhere in the skb and use it for the socket lookup. I think thats
also what the 2.2 code did. Other than that I don't have any ideas
either, but I'm not too familiar with that code, maybe someone else
could explain whether caching the sockets would really be a problem
and why.
> Other possible problems which came to my mind:
>
> - The previous version was missing IPv4 fragment reassembly: we obviously
> need this to be able to do socket lookups, so now I've added this to
> iptable_tproxy.
Makes sense.
> - IP_FREEBIND does not require NET_ADMIN capability, combined with the
> relaxed source address on ip_output() this means that we provide a way to
> do IPv4 address forging for unprivileged users. As we must not break
> anything it looks like we need a separate socket option for disabling
> output source address checks (this would obviously require NET_ADMIN).
Also sounds reasonable.
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists