netdev - Re: [IPV4] LVS: Allow to send ICMP unreachable responses when real-servers are removed

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: <20070514.033504.48528120.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2007 03:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kaber@...sh.net
Cc:	horms@...ge.net.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jkrzyszt@....icnet.pl
Subject: Re: [IPV4] LVS: Allow to send ICMP unreachable responses when
 real-servers are removed

From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:21:34 +0200

> This allows any user to send spoofed packets when ip_nonlocal_bind
> is set, which is a quite big change in behaviour of this option.
> The TPROXY patches include a similar change, but use a flag in
> struct flowi that requires CAP_NET_ADMIN to be set, which seems like
> a better idea. Alternatively you could just use input routing for
> non-local source addresses like ip_route_me_harder does.

Good point.

> BTW, there doesn't even seem to be a spot where IPVS calls
> ip_route_output with the source address set. What exactly is this
> needed for?

I suppose he has a patch to make use of it, but was waiting
for this route.c change to go in first.
-
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