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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1259583359.873.17.camel@bigi>
Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:15:59 -0500
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>
Cc:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	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 Sun, 2009-11-29 at 21:35 +0100, KOVACS Krisztian wrote:

> The story is that we really do want to deliver these packets locally, as
> if the destination IP address was locally configured on the host. The only
> way I know of to get the packet to ip_local_deliver() is by using a local
> route.

Aha, now i understand where both you and Patrick are coming from. So
you literally have to hit the main(or default) table in the reverse
source validation. How does the workaround (that you suggested) work
then? i.e you are going to fail the RTN_UNICAST test no matter what.

Dave, give me some short time to mull this over. I am not sure i like
the sysctl approach - we may have to just revert the whole thing
instead.

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