netdev - Re: [v12 PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new target for HASH based fwmark

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: <201205071457.32127.hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2012 14:57:30 +0200
From:	Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
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: [v12 PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new target for HASH based fwmark

On Monday 07 May 2012 14:22:32 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 02:09:46PM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > On Monday 07 May 2012 13:56:12 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > > > > > We have plenty of rules where just source port mask is zero.
> > > > > > and the dest-port-mask is 0xfffc (or 0xffff)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 0xffff and 0x0000 means on/off respectively.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Still curious, how can 0xfffc be useful?
> > > > 
> > > > That's a special case where an appl is using 4 ports.
> > > > But in general, have not seen other than "on/off" except for above.
> > > 
> > > I see. Well I'm fine with this way to switch on/off things, just
> > > wanted some clafication.
> > > 
> > > Still one final thing I'd like to remove before inclusion:
> > > 
> > > +       union hmark_ports       port_mask;
> > > +       union hmark_ports       port_set;
> > > +       __u32                   spi_mask;
> > > +       __u32                   spi_set;
> > > 
> > > the spi_mask seems redundant. The port_mask already provides u32 for
> > > it.
> > 
> > No problems, I'll remove it.
> 
> OK. As a nice side-effect, this will lead to removing the branch that
> tests ESP/AH in hmark_set_tuple_ports.
>
Yes, only check if not ESP or AH to swap src/dst

+static void
+hmark_set_tuple_ports(const struct sk_buff *skb, unsigned int nhoff,
+		      struct hmark_tuple *t, const struct xt_hmark_info *info)
+{
+	int protoff;
+
+	protoff = proto_ports_offset(t->proto);
+	if (protoff < 0)
+		return;
+
+	nhoff += protoff;
+	if (skb_copy_bits(skb, nhoff, &t->uports, sizeof(t->uports)) < 0)
+		return;
+
+	t->uports.v32 = (t->uports.v32 & info->port_mask.v32) |
+			info->port_set.v32;
+
+	if (t->proto != IPPROTO_ESP && t->proto != IPPROTO_AH)
+		if (t->uports.p16.dst < t->uports.p16.src)
+			swap(t->uports.p16.dst, t->uports.p16.src);
+}

> Please, use the patch that I sent you yesterday. Recover the swap
> behaviour that you need, I'll mangle the patch myself to add the
> little comment to explain why we do this with CT as well.
> 
> BTW, note that you do *not* have to remove the XT_HMARK_SPI flags, we
> still need those for iptables-save.
> 
> While at it:
> 
> +enum {                      
> +       XT_HMARK_NONE,       
> +       XT_HMARK_SADR_AND,   
> +       XT_HMARK_DADR_AND,   
> +       XT_HMARK_SPI_AND,    
> +       XT_HMARK_SPI_OR,    
> 
> remove all trailing _OR
> 
> +       XT_HMARK_SPORT_AND,  
> +       XT_HMARK_DPORT_AND,  
> +       XT_HMARK_SPORT_OR,   
> +       XT_HMARK_DPORT_OR,   
> +       XT_HMARK_PROTO_AND,
> 
> rename all _AND by _MASK.
> 
> +       XT_HMARK_RND,        
> +       XT_HMARK_MODULUS,    
> +       XT_HMARK_OFFSET,     
> +       XT_HMARK_CT,         
> +       XT_HMARK_METHOD_L3,  
> +       XT_HMARK_METHOD_L3_4,
> };
> 
> What I'm asking should require very little changes in the kernel-code.
> 

I'll send you the updates later to day

> > > In case you want to support different masks for AH/ESP and TCP, you
> > > could do the following:
> > > 
> > > iptables -I PREROUTING -t mangle -p esp -j HARK --spi-mask 0xffff0000
> > > iptables -I PREROUTING -t mangle -p tcp -j HARK --port-mask 0xfffc
> > > 
> > > Any objection?
> > 
> > I don't think this is a problem, but it should be written in the man page
> > that ports and spi share mask so they can't be used at the same time.
> 
> documentation is fine.
> 
> iptables can stop this by spotting a warning message from user-space.

If you think thats enough, I fine with that.

-- 
Regards
Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
--
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