netdev - Re: Connection tracking and vlan

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: <469958e00910301251he051d69p178ce53e84130765@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:51:30 -0700
From:	Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler@...il.com>
To:	Adayadil Thomas <adayadil.thomas@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: Connection tracking and vlan

Yes, it is legitimate for a Bridge to see two different 10.*.*.*
networks on different VLANs.
A Bridge can even see that same MAC address being used by two
different end stations
on different VLANs (especially if the global bit is not set).

What is not legitimate is presenting both of those 10.*.*.* networks
for local delivery.

If you are only bridging the frames then there are no connections to
track, only frames.



On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Adayadil Thomas
<adayadil.thomas@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Very strange, this question about vlan looks like discussion we had
>> yesterday (or the day before...) about interfaces (versus packet defragmentation)
>>
>> "IP conntracking" is about IP, and [V]LAN doesnt matter at all at this protocol level.
>>
>> Same thing if you have two interfaces, eth0 & eth1 : IP conntrack tuples dont
>> include interface name/index
>
> I am concerned about the following situation -
>
> The linux device is configured as a bridge and is deployed between the
> trunk ports
> of 2 switches. In this situation the linux device will be seeing 802.1q packets
> with vlan headers specifying the vlanids.
>
> It is valid to have an environment where private IP addresses are duplicated
> on different virtual LANs. i.e. it is valid to have machine A (
> 10.10.10.1) talking to
> machine B (10.10.10.2) on vlan 1,
> and
> at the same time machine C ( 10.10.10.1) talking to machine D
> (10.10.10.2) on vlan 2.
>
> Since they are on different LANs (VLANs), there should not be any issues.
>
> Now when VLANs are shared across switches, the trunk port will sent
> 802.1q tagged
> packets between the switches. Imagine these packets when going through
> the linux bridge.
> The 802.1q header should identify the separate vlans by the vlan id.
>
> If ip_conntrack does not consider vlans, it is possible that all 5
> tuple are the same
> and thus affect the connection tracking.
>
> I hope I have described the scenario well. If not I can explain in a
> more detailed fashion.
>
> Thanks
> --
> 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
>
--
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