netdev - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: Fix br_nf_pre_routing() in conjunction with bridge-nf-call-ip(6)tables=0

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: <4F03650D.8050200@nod.at>
Date:	Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:29:01 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Bart De Schuymer <bdschuym@...dora.be>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: Fix br_nf_pre_routing() in conjunction with
 bridge-nf-call-ip(6)tables=0

Am 03.01.2012 21:15, schrieb Bart De Schuymer:
> The documentation is probably not explicit enough, but I would keep the
> behavior as it is now. Setting bridge-nf-call-iptables to 0 makes
> iptables behave as if bridge-netfilter was not enabled at compilation.
> Anyway, your patch is almost certainly flawed since the fact that
> skb->nf_bridge can be NULL is used as part of the logic in
> br_netfilter.c: it indicates that bridge-nf-call-iptables was 0 when the
> packet was first processed by bridge-netfilter and should therefore not
> be given to iptables in any other netfilter hook.

Thanks for the explanation!

Wouldn't it make sense to check for bridge-nf-call-iptables in xt_physdev?
So that the user gets warned that his iptables rule will never match...

Thanks,
//richard



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)