netdev - Re: tc-ipt v0.2: Extension does not know id 1504083504

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7c4735f2-3f0a-093b-2dfc-8b25c08caf05@fatooh.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:52:33 -0700
From:   Corey Hickey <bugfood-ml@...ooh.org>
To:     "Sergey K." <simkergey@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tc-ipt v0.2: Extension does not know id 1504083504

On 2017-09-29 23:34, Sergey K. wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> I have to apply this patch
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shemminger/iproute2.git/commit/?h=v4.10.0&id=97a02cabefb2e2dcfe27f89943709afa84be5525
> 
> to my version of iproute2.
> But now I have a new information message, when I'm using construction like this:
> 
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: u32 match u32 0 0 action xt -j
> MARK --set-mark 0
> 
> message text:
> tc-ipt v0.2: Extension does not know id 1504083504
> 
> 
> I'm using Debian Stretch, kernel 4.9.0-3-amd64, iptables 1.6.0 and
> patched iproute 4.9.0
> 
> How to solve?

Funny, I just ran into this too and subscribed here to report it. The 
error occurs during parsing of any options to the jump target; if the 
target has no options, there is no error.

The problem seems to be an outdated version of struct xtables_target in 
include/xtables.h. The version in iptables has an additional member 
"udata" that makes the offsets in the struct different for anything 
following.

A quick fix for this particular problem is to copy include/xtables.h from:
git://git.netfilter.org/iptables
...into include/ in the iproute2 source, then recompile after a 'make 
clean'.

As for a comprehensive fix, I don't know--presumably other headers in 
include/ may be out of date, but I don't want to just blindly send a 
patch unless someone who knows the ramifications says it's ok. This 
seems like it would need maintainer oversight. If there's something I 
can do, though, let me know.

-Corey