Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >>Please send mails discussing netfilter to netfilter-devel.
> >
> > Ok. I just found out this changed to vger. But
> > [email protected] is bouncing me.
>
> Seems to work, I got your mail on netfilter-devel.
Looks like it works sometimes. Added lkml as a backup...
> >>Al Boldi wrote:
> >>>With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
> >>>
> >>>Other than requiring the REJECT target to be ported to the mangle
> >>> table, is the filter table faster than the mangle table?
> >>
> >>There are some minor differences in ordering (mangle comes before
> >>DNAT, filter afterwards), but for most rulesets thats completely
> >>irrelevant. The only difference that really matters is that mangle
> >>performs rerouting in LOCAL_OUT for packets that had their routing
> >>key changed, so its really a superset of the filter table. If you
> >>want to use REJECT in the mangle table, you just need to remove the
> >>restriction to filter, it works fine. I would prefer to also remove
> >>the restriction of MARK, CONNMARK etc. to mangle, they're used for
> >>more than just routing today so that restriction also doesn't make
> >>much sense. Patches for this are welcome.
> >
> > Something like this (untested):
> >
> > --- ipt_REJECT.bak.c 2007-10-12 08:25:17.000000000 +0300
> > +++ ipt_REJECT.c 2007-10-12 08:31:44.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -165,6 +165,7 @@ static void send_reset(struct sk_buff *o
> >
> > static inline void send_unreach(struct sk_buff *skb_in, int code)
> > {
> > + if (!skb_in->dst) ip_route_me_harder(&skb_in, RTN_UNSPEC);
> > icmp_send(skb_in, ICMP_DEST_UNREACH, code, 0);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -245,9 +246,6 @@ static struct xt_target ipt_reject_reg =
> > .family = AF_INET,
> > .target = reject,
> > .targetsize = sizeof(struct ipt_reject_info),
> > - .table = "filter",
> > - .hooks = (1 << NF_IP_LOCAL_IN) | (1 << NF_IP_FORWARD) |
> > - (1 << NF_IP_LOCAL_OUT),
> > .checkentry = check,
> > .me = THIS_MODULE,
> > };
>
> That includes an unrelated change, I meant to simply remove the filter
> table restriction.
>
> >>>If not, then shouldn't the filter table be obsoleted to avoid
> >>> confusion?
> >>
> >>That would probably confuse people. Just don't use it if you don't
> >>need to.
> >
> > The problem is that people think they are safe with the filter table,
> > when in fact they need the prerouting chain to seal things. Right now
> > this is only possible in the mangle table.
>
> Why do they need PREROUTING?
Well, for example to stop any transient packets being forwarded. You could
probably hack around this using mark's, but you can't stop the implied route
lookup, unless you stop it in prerouting.
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
