netdev - Re: Netfilter: New target: RLOG

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: <4F17E0A4.9040004@linutronix.de>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:21:40 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
CC:	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: Netfilter: New target: RLOG

On 19.01.2012 10:12, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:43:25PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> RLOG is a new log target, it works like LOG with the exception that it writes to ring buffers.
>> It makes use of Steven Rostedt's ring_buffer subsystem.
>> I've used Steve's ring buffer because it allows concurrent writes. IOW it's very fast.
>> For more details see: Documentation/trace/ring-buffer-design.txt.
>>
>> Each ring buffer is represented as a pipe-like file in /proc/net/netfilter/xt_RLOG/.
>> You can read from it with and program you like (cat, syslog, etc...).
>> The default size is 1MiB. With this size it can store approximately 5000 messages.
>>
>> - Why not LOG?
>> I like the LOG target a lot but I really hat it when it floods my kernel syslog.
>> dmesg becomes useless.
>> Writing all log messages to a file using syslogd also not always the best solution.
>> Most of the time my firewall logs just waste disk space.
>>
>> Compared with Steve's ring_buffer, the kernel syslog is rather slow.
>> Especially when the firewall logs very much syslog becomes a bottleneck.
>> As we all know printk() is not fast.
>>
>> - Why not ULOG/NFLOG?
>> Because it cannot replace LOG.
>> Details like PHYSIN and PHYSOUT are not available form the packet headers.
>> Also on many Linux systems ulogd is not available/supported.
>
> We only include physin and phyout if netfilter bridge is enabled. I
> may be missing anything but, why can these be useful if bridging is not
> enabled?

Of course they are only useful if bridging enabled.
In nearly all of my use-cases I'm using bridging (KVM, LXC, ...).

>> - Why RLOG?
>> Using RLOG you can have many ring buffers with all kind of logs.
>> If your firewall goes nuts you don't have to mess you rule-set with adding
>> new LOG rules to find out what's going on.
>> Just install a few RLOG rules with small buffer sized and read them if you don't
>> know what's going on.
>> If you make you firewall rule-set per default verbose using LOG or NFLOG it will
>> generate lot's of useless messages which you'll never ever read.
>> With RLOG you can bypass this problem.
>> On my firewall I record only useful data to the disk. Everything else goes into RLOG.
>> If your firewall is really busy and you want to log nearly everything, c
>> reate a big ring buffer and read from is using your favorite userspace tool.
>> In case the buffer fills faster than the userspace consumes it, RLOG will warn you.
>> I'd also possible to resize the buffer.
>
> I still think this can be useful.
>
> But, why don't you add this to the LOG target as an extension instead
> of yet another target?

Yeah, I could add --ring, --ring-size and --add-timestamp to LOG.
What about a rlog_common.o which can be used by ipt_LOG and ip6t_LOG?

Thanks,
//richard
--
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