netdev - Re: [PATCH v4] netfilter: ipt_CLUSTERIP: remove "no conntrack!"

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: <4D2F28B9.50407@netfilter.org>
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:30:49 +0100
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	Netfilter Development Mailinglist 
	<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] netfilter: ipt_CLUSTERIP: remove "no conntrack!"

On 13/01/11 15:39, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 13 janvier 2011 à 15:02 +0100, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
>> On Thursday 2011-01-13 14:38, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>> Le jeudi 13 janvier 2011 à 12:54 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso a écrit :
>>>
>>>> But printing this does not provide any useful information. The first
>>>> packet that does not belong to the cluster node that has received the
>>>> packet, or the first invalid packet, will trigger this.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, this confuses users since they can do nothing if they receive
>>>> this message.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, this target should be supersedes by the cluster match, which
>>>> has been there for quite some time (it's also more flexible).
>>>
>>> Now you mentioned it, cluster match is not as flexible right now,
>>> its hashing is on source_ip only.
>>
>> I think in that case, xt_cluster should be improved rather
>> than an old module.
> 
> Amen
> 
> We should not improve IPv4 support then, I see.
> 
> My customers use this old module, and upgrading to xt_cluster is not an
> option.
> 
> Should we discuss this forever or fix it ?

hey hey, I'm fine with fixing things. Patch v4 is OK.

Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>

> In the end, people are forced to add useless iptables rule to DROP
> INVALID packets before entering ipt_CLUSTERIP, after googling or
> eventually asking to experts.
> 
> Last time this was discussed, this went nowhere :
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg48676.html
> 
> Come on guys, we can do it, dont be afraid.
> 
> A non rate limited printk() in kernel is forbidden, especially in
> network stack.
> 
> Then, cluster match can be improved, I am sure you already have a patch
> for it.

what scenario could benefit from the destination-based hashing?
--
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