netdev - Re: [PATCH] NETFILTER module xt_hmark new target for HASH MARK

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:	Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:42:03 +0100
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
CC:	"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"jengelh@...ozas.de" <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"hans@...illstrom.com" <hans@...illstrom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NETFILTER module xt_hmark new target for HASH MARK

On 03/02/11 15:23, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 14:51 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> On 03/02/11 14:34, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
>> this assumption is not valid in NAT handlings.
> 
> That's true, because I want to avoid conntrack
> 
>> If you want consistent hashing with NAT handlings you'll have to make
>> this stateful and use the conntrack source and reply directions of the
>> original tuples (thus making it stateful). That may be a problem because
>> some people may want to use this without enabling connection tracking.
> 
> What about a compilation switch or a sysctl ?

or better some option for iptables.

>> Are you using this for (uplink) load balancing?
> 
> Actually in both ways 
>  - in front of a bunch of ipvs
>  - and in the payloads for outgoing traffic.
> 
>> Could you also include one realistic example in the patch description on
>> how this is used?
> Sure, I guess you mean some nice ascii graphics,  
> iptables and ip route commands

That would be great, for the record.

>> If this is accepted, I think this has to be merge with the (already
>> overloaded) MARK target.
> 
> I have no opinion about that, others might have.

Better put it in the MARK target with a new revision. I think that
Patrick is going to ask you this.

I don't know why I had the impression that MARK is overload, it's
actually fine at a first glance to the code.
--
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