netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/5] netfilter: xt_TEE: have cloned packet travel through Xtables too

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: <4BB4A796.8010708@trash.net>
Date:	Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:03:02 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
CC:	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] netfilter: xt_TEE: have cloned packet travel through
 Xtables too

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2010-04-01 15:48, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> On Thursday 2010-04-01 15:22, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>>>>> Conntrack loops are prevented by using a dummy conntrack, just as 
>>>>>>> NOTRACK does.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>  - When the cloned packets gets XFRMed or tunneled, its status switches 
>>>>>>>    from "special" to "plain". Doing policy routing on them does not seem 
>>>>>>>    so far-fetched.
>>>>>> My question was about the case without conntrack.
>>>>> Hm. Do you have any suggestion in countering a case whereby a user
>>>>> does -I OUTPUT -j TEE without conntrack?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps making nesting a feature that requires conntrack, such that the 
>>>>> non-CT case can't loop?
>>>> If we drop the reentrancy thing, what should work is to prevent
>>>> using loopback as output device and using something similar to
>>>> the recursion counters tunnel devices used to have.
>>> Nah. I'm going to pick a bit from struct skbuff to indicate the
>>> packet was teed so as to avoid that loop.
>> That's a bad idea, we shouldn't be adding new skb members for something
>> as peripheral as this module.
> 
> I would have done this, which does not add a member:
> 
> 	IP6CB(skb)->flags |= IPSKB_CLONED;

This doesn't work, the CB is not preserved across layers
(which f.i. matters if you allow loopback destinations).
Its also not preserved for clones.

>> What's wrong with adding a reentrancy counter?
> 
> Sounds like a plan.


--
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