netdev - Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32

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:	Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:04:38 -0500
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>,
	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@...abit.hu>,
	Andreas Schultz <aschultz@...p10.net>, tproxy@...ts.balabit.hu,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32

On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 16:46 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> 
> The root cause seems to be an invalid assumption, marks are often not
> used in a symetric fashion as required by RPF.

The only assumption is: if you set set up a mark on incoming, you are
asking the reverse validation that is to be used to consider that mark.

This has nothing to do with RPF really;-> RPF is off. There is a legit
bug in the old setup that has a table programmed with a route that is
not unicast. 

> Since this patch has already proven to break existing setups, I think
> it should be reverted or the behaviour made optional with a default to
> off.

I disagree. What other setup is broken? ;->

cheers,
jamal

--
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