netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: ICMPv6 packets transmitted on wrong interface if nfmark is mangled

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]

Date:	Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:29:20 +0100
From:	Dries De Winter <dries.dewinter@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	pablo@...filter.org, kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ICMPv6 packets transmitted on wrong interface if
 nfmark is mangled

2012/11/29 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>:
> From: Dries De Winter <dries.dewinter@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:09:55 +0100 (CET)
>
>> I propose a patch which allows to mark a dst_entry as "non-reroutable".
>> icmp6_dst_alloc() (used by ndisc and MLD implementation) will always mark
>> the
>> allocated dst_entry as such. A check is added to netfilter (IPv6-only) so
>> packets heading for a non-reroutable destination are never rerouted.
>
> What about addrconf_dst_alloc()?  Shouldn't it have this new flag set
> as well?
I don't think so. I'm not sure if I understand all of IPv6 routing
correctly, but it looks like dst entries allocated by
addrconf_dst_alloc() are added to the routing table pretty much like
normal routes and skbuffs get assigned such dst entries by normal rule
lookup / route lookup.

If an skbuff got assigned such a dst entry by normal routing in the
first place, and the changes done by the mangle table don't affect
routing (e.g. skb->mark changed but no policy based routing), I guess
that rerouting the packet will get you there too. In the meantime, by
not specifying DST_NOREROUTE for such destinations, you don't lose the
capability to mangle a packet so it should really be routed
differently.

> Regardless of the answer to that question, it should be explained
> in the commit message.
Should I post a new patch email including this comment?

Regards,

Dries.
--
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