netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] netfilter: revert introduction of 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]

Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:51:49 +0100
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] netfilter: revert introduction of egress hook

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:41:30AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 3/18/20 10:36 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:33:22AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > This reverts the following commits:
> > > 
> > >    8537f78647c0 ("netfilter: Introduce egress hook")
> > >    5418d3881e1f ("netfilter: Generalize ingress hook")
> > >    b030f194aed2 ("netfilter: Rename ingress hook include file")
> > > 
> > >  From the discussion in [0], the author's main motivation to add a hook
> > > in fast path is for an out of tree kernel module, which is a red flag
> > > to begin with. Other mentioned potential use cases like NAT{64,46}
> > > is on future extensions w/o concrete code in the tree yet. Revert as
> > > suggested [1] given the weak justification to add more hooks to critical
> > > fast-path.
> > > 
> > >    [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1583927267.git.lukas@wunner.de/
> > >    [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200318.011152.72770718915606186.davem@davemloft.net/
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > 
> > Nacked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
> > 
> > Daniel, you must be really worried about achieving your goals if you
> > have to do politics to block stuff.
> 
> Looks like this is your only rationale technical argument you can come
> up with?

I have waited for two days and I got no feedback from you.

Moreover, your concerns on performance has been addressed: Performance
impact is negligible.

Then, you popped up more arguments, like a reference to an email from
17 years ago, where only iptables was available and the only choice to
add ingress/egress filtering was to make another copy and paste of the
iptables code.

I also explained how to use this egress hook in Netfilter.

What's missing on your side?