netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipvs: restore support for iptables SNAT

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]

Message-ID: <20110602130132.GG13097@verge.net.au>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:01:34 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter@...r.kernel.org,
	Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>,
	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipvs: restore support for iptables SNAT

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:51:27PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On 02/06/11 02:09, Simon Horman wrote:
> > From: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
> > 
> > 	Fix the IPVS priority in LOCAL_IN hook,
> > so that SNAT target in POSTROUTING is supported for IPVS
> > traffic as in 2.6.36 where it worked depending on
> > module load order.
> > 
> > 	Before 2.6.37 we used priority 100 in LOCAL_IN to
> > process remote requests. We used the same priority as
> > iptables SNAT and if IPVS handlers are installed before
> > SNAT handlers we supported SNAT in POSTROUTING for the IPVS
> > traffic. If SNAT is installed before IPVS, the netfilter
> > handlers are before IPVS and netfilter checks the NAT
> > table twice for the IPVS requests: once in LOCAL_IN where
> > IPS_SRC_NAT_DONE is set and second time in POSTROUTING
> > where the SNAT rules are ignored because IPS_SRC_NAT_DONE
> > was already set in LOCAL_IN.
> > 
> > 	But in 2.6.37 we changed the IPVS priority for
> > LOCAL_IN with the goal to be unique (101) forgetting the
> > fact that for IPVS traffic we should not walk both
> > LOCAL_IN and POSTROUTING nat tables.
> > 
> > 	So, change the priority for processing remote
> > IPVS requests from 101 to 99, i.e. before NAT_SRC (100)
> > because we prefer to support SNAT in POSTROUTING
> > instead of LOCAL_IN. It also moves the priority for
> > IPVS replies from 99 to 98. Use constants instead of
> > magic numbers at these places.
> 
> I have applied this to my net-next-2.6 tree. Once it hits linus tree,
> I'll pass it to -stable.
> 
> http://1984.lsi.us.es/git/?p=net-next-2.6/.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/pablo/nf-next-2.6-updates

Thanks Pablo.
--
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