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:	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:59:37 -0500
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@...abit.hu>
Cc:	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Andreas Schultz <aschultz@...p10.net>, tproxy@...ts.balabit.hu,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tproxy,regression] tproxy broken in 2.6.32

On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:45 +0100, KOVACS Krisztian wrote:
> Hi,
> 

> No, because by narrowing the rule to specific ingress interfaces the
> lookup done in fib_validate_source() won't match the rule(s) (because
> the flow used will have iif set to the loopback device), and thus it
> will look up the main table and select a unicast route.

ok, nice;->

> I don't think it would be unreasonable to add a sysctl but disable the
> feature by default. It's up to you, of course.

The problem is it is hard to decide where the proper exception is to be
made. I can make it only worry about the scenario you are faced with
something like attached (incomplete, uncompiled, untested) patch. Will
that do it or can you think of other scenarios where source validation
is done and this is needed (example forwarding path)? Patrick?
[I could move the check into fib_validate, but that would punish other
users with a few extra cycles]. 

cheers,
jamal

View attachment "fib-val-sysctl" of type "text/x-patch" (588 bytes)