netdev - Re[2]: [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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 7 May 2012 21:09:05 +0200 (CEST)
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[2]:  [v12 PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new 
	target for HASH based fwmark

>On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
>> 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
>
>Do you really that branch? I mean, unless I'm missing anything, swapping
>them shouldn't be a problem.

Well, 
that was just to keep backward compatibility and make my tests happy.
I'll remove them and change my test setup.




--
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