netdev - Re: -j MARK in raw vs. mangle (was Re: xfrm by MARK: tcp problems when mark for in and out differ)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:05:32 +0200
From:	"Gerd v. Egidy" <lists@...dy.de>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	hadi@...erus.ca, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -j MARK in raw vs. mangle (was Re: xfrm by MARK: tcp problems when mark for in and out differ)

Hi Patrick,

> > So it seems this has nothing to do with xfrm, but that the MARK target
> > has different effects when used in raw than in mangle. I was using raw
> > because I had to set conntrack zones too and it was more conveniant to
> > do both in one place.
> > 
> > Can one of the netfilter guys comment on this? Is using MARK in raw not
> > fully supported or has known deficiencies?
> 
> No, the problem is most likely that for outgoing packets, the XFRM
> lookup is done with the route lookup before the packet is even sent,
> so once it hits the raw or mangle table, it is too late. mangle however
> performs rerouting when the mark value changes, at which point a new
> XFRM lookup is performed.

ah, this would explain it. Thanks for the explanation. I'll just stick with 
mangle for marking.

Kind regards,

Gerd

-- 
Address (better: trap) for people I really don't want to get mail from:
jonas@...tusamerica.com
--
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