netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] xfrm: interface: Don't hide plain packets from netfilter

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:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:18:45 +0100
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Cc:     Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfrm: interface: Don't hide plain packets from
 netfilter

Le 10/12/2020 à 12:48, Eyal Birger a écrit :
> Hi Nicolas,
Hi Eyal,

> 
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 1:10 PM Nicolas Dichtel
> <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I also think they should be consistent. But it'd still be confusing to me
> to get an OUTPUT hook on the inner packet in the forwarding case.
I re-read the whole thread and I agree with you. There is no reason to pass the
inner packet through the OUTPUT hook (my comment about the consistency with ip
tunnels is still valid ;-)).
Sorry for the confusion.

Phil, with nftables, you can match the 'kind' of the interface, that should be
enough to match packets, isn't it?


Regards,
Nicolas