netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next,RFC 0/5] Netfilter egress hook

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: <20200304095032.s6ypvmo45d75wkr7@wunner.de>
Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 10:50:32 +0100
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:     Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Martin Mares <mj@....cz>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next,RFC 0/5] Netfilter egress hook

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:51:49PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 02:41:00PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > Introduce a netfilter egress hook to complement the existing ingress hook.
> > 
> > User space support for nft is submitted in a separate patch.
> > 
> > The need for this arose because I had to filter egress packets which do
> > not match a specific ethertype.  The most common solution appears to be
> > to enslave the interface to a bridge and use ebtables, but that's
> > cumbersome to configure and comes with a (small) performance penalty.
> > An alternative approach is tc, but that doesn't afford equivalent
> > matching options as netfilter.  A bit of googling reveals that more
> > people have expressed a desire for egress filtering in the past:
> > 
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg50038.html
> > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/512371
> > 
> > I am first performing traffic control with sch_handle_egress() before
> > performing filtering with nf_egress().  That order is identical to
> > ingress processing.  I'm wondering whether an inverse order would be
> > more logical or more beneficial.  Among other things it would allow
> > marking packets with netfilter on egress before performing traffic
> > control based on that mark.  Thoughts?
> 
> Would you provide some numbers on the performance impact for this new
> hook?

Just a gentle ping for this series.  I'd still be very interested to
get it upstream.  When posting the above-quoted RFC, Daniel NAK'ed it
saying that "weak justification" was provided "for something that sits
in critical fastpath".

However I followed up with numbers showing that the series actually
results in a speedup rather than a slowdown if the feature isn't used:

https://lore.kernel.org/netfilter-devel/20191123131108.dlnrbutabh5i55ix@wunner.de/

So what's the consensus?  Shall I post a non-RFC version, rebased on
current nf-next/master?

Thanks!

Lukas