netdev - Re: MASQUERADE/SNAT and multiple interfaces with the same IP

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: <20130816111826.GC5154@breakpoint.cc>
Date:	Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:18:26 +0200
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netfilter@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: MASQUERADE/SNAT and multiple interfaces with the same IP

Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com> wrote:
> I added a pr_info() here to see when this function was called. It is
> triggered when the link goes down, as expected, but not when I just
> change the mark and move the flows to another interface. I still see
> the DESTROY/NEW-behavior though.

Yes, its handled by iptable_nat.c

> > Also, the nat core zaps conntracks when they are sent out on an
> > interface other than the original interface.
> >
> > See nf_nat_oif_changed() in iptable_nat.c
> 
> Thanks for letting me know, I will start looking into this function.
> Does this mean that even when using SNAT, the old mapping is deleted
> and a new created?

No.

> And does this event not notify conntrack?

It generates a destroy event.
--
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