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  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:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:11:19 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <>
To:     Lukas Wunner <>, Laura Garcia <>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <>,
        Florian Westphal <>,
        Netfilter Development Mailing list 
        <>,,, Martin Mares <>,
        Dmitry Safonov <>,
        Thomas Graf <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next 3/3] netfilter: Introduce egress hook

Hey Lukas,

On 4/23/20 6:05 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 04:44:44PM +0200, Laura Garcia wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 2:29 PM Pablo Neira Ayuso <> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 01:12:02AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/20 3:55 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>>>> We have plans to support for NAT64 and NAT46, this is the right spot
>>>>> to do this mangling. There is already support for the tunneling
>>>> But why is existing local-out or post-routing hook _not_ sufficient for
>>>> NAT64 given it being IP based?
>>> Those hooks are not coming at the end of the IP processing. There is
>>> very relevant IP code after those hooks that cannot be bypassed such
>>> as fragmentation, tunneling and neighbour output. Such transformation
>>> needs to happen after the IP processing, exactly from where Lukas is
>>> proposing.
>>> [...]
>>>>> infrastructure in netfilter from ingress, this spot from egress will
>>>>> allow us to perform the tunneling from here. There is also no way to
>>>>> drop traffic generated by dhclient, this also allow for filtering such
>>>>> locally generated traffic. And many more.
>> Any chance to continue with this approach? I'm afraid outbound
>> af_packets also could not be filtered without this hook.
> Thanks Laura, good to hear there's interest in the functionality.
> Daniel submitted a revert of this series but didn't cc me:
> In the ensuing discussion it turned out that the performance argument
> may be addressed by a rearrangement of sch_handle_egress() and
> nf_egress() invocations.  I could look into amending the series
> accordingly and resubmitting, though I'm currently swamped with
> other work.

The rework of these hooks is still on my todo list, too swamped with
other stuff as well right now, but I'll see to have a prototype this
net-next development cycle.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists