netdev - Re: [BUG / question] in routing rules, some options (e.g. ipproto, sport) cause rules to be ignored in presence of packet marks

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: <24ebb842-cb3a-e1a2-c83d-44b4a5757200@yandex.pl>
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:11:34 +0200
From:   Michal Soltys <msoltyspl@...dex.pl>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [BUG / question] in routing rules, some options (e.g. ipproto,
 sport) cause rules to be ignored in presence of packet marks

On 3/29/21 10:52 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> 
> ip_route_me_harder() does not set source / destination port in the
> flow key, so it explains why fib rules that use them are not hit after
> mangling the packet. These keys were added in 4.17, but I
> don't think this use case every worked. You have a different experience?
> 

So all the more recent additions to routing rules - src port, dst port, 
uid range and ipproto - are not functioning correctly with the second 
routing check.

Are there plans to eventually fix that ?

While I just adjusted/rearranged my stuff to not rely on those, it 
should probably be at least documented otherwise (presumably in ip-rule 
manpage and perhaps in `ip rule help` as well).