netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] vrf: run conntrack only in context of lower/physdev for locally generated packets

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 15:16:38 +0200
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        lschlesinger@...venets.com, dsahern@...nel.org, crosser@...rage.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] vrf: run conntrack only in context of
 lower/physdev for locally generated packets

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:58PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > If the motion for these hooks in the driver is to match for 'oif vrf',
> > now that there is an egress hook, it might make more sense to filter
> > from there based on the interface rather than adding these hook calls
> > from the vrf driver?
> > 
> > I wonder if, in the future, it makes sense to entirely disable these
> > hooks in the vrf driver and rely on egress hook?
> 
> Agree, it would be better to support ingress+egress hhoks from vrf
> so vrf specific filtering can be done per-device.
> 
> I don't think we can just remove the existing NF_HOOK()s in vrf though.

I understand, there are people relying on this.

> We could add toggles to disable them, but I'm not sure how to best
> expose that (ip link attribute, ethtool, sysctl ...)...?

I would make it global toggle. As you mentioned it might be good to
explore an alternative to this via the ingress+egress hooks now that
the usecases are better known?