Re: [v12 PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new target for HASH based fwmark

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Monday 07 May 2012 13:56:12 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > > > We have plenty of rules where just source port mask is zero.
> > > > and the dest-port-mask is 0xfffc (or 0xffff)
> > > 
> > > 0xffff and 0x0000 means on/off respectively.
> > > 
> > > Still curious, how can 0xfffc be useful?
> > 
> > That's a special case where an appl is using 4 ports.
> > But in general, have not seen other than "on/off" except for above.
> 
> I see. Well I'm fine with this way to switch on/off things, just
> wanted some clafication.
> 
> Still one final thing I'd like to remove before inclusion:
> 
> +       union hmark_ports       port_mask;
> +       union hmark_ports       port_set;
> +       __u32                   spi_mask;
> +       __u32                   spi_set;
> 
> the spi_mask seems redundant. The port_mask already provides u32 for
> it.

No problems, I'll remove it.

> In case you want to support different masks for AH/ESP and TCP, you
> could do the following:
> 
> iptables -I PREROUTING -t mangle -p esp -j HARK --spi-mask 0xffff0000
> iptables -I PREROUTING -t mangle -p tcp -j HARK --port-mask 0xfffc
> 
> Any objection?

I don't think this is a problem, but it should be written in the man page
that ports and spi share mask so they can't be used at the same time.


> Yes, you'll have to change user-space again, but we have time for
> that.

:-)

> 
> > > > > I'm also telling this because I think that ICMP support will be
> > > > > easier to add if port masking is removed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > This is what I have done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - I reduced the code size a little bit by combining the hmark_ct_set_htuple_ipvX into one func.
> > > > > >   by adding a hmark_addr6_mask() and hmark_addr_any_mask()
> > > > > >   Note that using "otuple->src.l3num" as param 1 in both src and dst is not a typo.
> > > > > >   (it's not set in the rtuple)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Good one, this made the code even smaller.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > - Made the if (dst < src) swap() in the hmark_hash() since it should be used by every caller.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not really, you don't need for the conntrack part. The original tuple
> > > > > is always the same, not matter where the packet is coming from. I have
> > > > > removed this again so it only affects packet-based hashing.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes original tuple is always the same but not always less than the rtuple.
> > > > If you have two nodes that should produce the same hmark,
> > > > one with conntrack an one without you must make a compare to make it consistent.
> > > 
> > > I see, for consistency still makes sense although this seems to me
> > > like still strange configuration. In what scenario would you use two
> > > different approaches?
> > 
> > In the way that we use HMARK,
> > in the incomming path there is conntrack disabled in the contrainer, 
> > for the outgoing patch i.e. at the payloads there is conntrack used.
> > In that case the --hmark-ct makes life easier.
> 
> That's still not enough to guarantee that the mark will be consistent
> if NAT is in user, but I don't mind recovering the swap and add some
> comment on the code to explain this if this makes your life easier.

Thanks,  I will send a new patch soon.

-- 
Regards
Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Photo]

Powered by Linux