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]

Message-Id: <201102031837.32971.hans@schillstrom.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Feb 2011 18:37:32 +0100
From:	Hans Schillstrom <hans@...illstrom.com>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:	Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>,
	"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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NETFILTER module xt_hmark new target for HASH MARK

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 17:01:27 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On 03/02/11 16:42, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Hm, this is actually not straight forward to implement, you'll have to
> use hook functions to avoid the module dependencies with conntrack and
> that's pretty annoying.
> 
> I don't come up with a good solution for this.

A configuration switch might be OK.

> 
> >>> Are you using this for (uplink) load balancing?
> >>
> >> Actually in both ways 
> >>  - in front of a bunch of ipvs
> 
> to make some preliminary load-sharing between the load balancers?

Yes that's right
and in the payloads send the return traffic in the same path.

> 
> >>  - and in the payloads for outgoing traffic.
> 
> and then to select the uplink, right?
> 

Yes.
It also has the same role for cluster originated traffic to spread the load over multiple interfaces,
and catch the return traffic.
--
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