Re: [PATCH] brouted packet identified as PACKET_OTHERHOST blocked by higher protocol
Yigal Reiss (yreiss) yre...@cisco.com wrote: The problem I'm trying to solve is that when packets being sent from one bridged interface to the other are brouted they get dropped by the IP layer. The reason is that the packet being raised has pkt_type of type PACKET_OTHERHOST. No, thats not the problem you're trying to solve. If you want to move OTHERHOST skbs, don't (b)route them? Whats the real issue that you're trying to solve? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] brouted packet identified as PACKET_OTHERHOST blocked by higher protocol
Yigal Reiss (yreiss) yre...@cisco.com wrote: Florian Westphal [mailto:f...@strlen.de] wrote: Maybe, but if you broute everything you might as well just remove the bridge... I want to be selective. My setup is a home router. So I can have ebtables rules for which traffic to (b)route and which to bridge, based on security/performance criteria. This usually doesn't work since you can only safely use L3 headers (unless you disallow ip fragmentation to occur -- else first fragment will be brouted, rest is bridged). You can use -j redirect in ebtables broute table to force local MAC dnat (this also 'fixes' the pkttype to _HOST) if you really want to broute. I may be missing something obvious, but what is the normal case where using an ebtables 'broute' -j DROP rule does work? It doesn't, (for ip protocols), as you discovered. But there are other protocols too, so I'm not sure its good idea to uncoditionally reset pkttype. (It also changes long-standing behaviour). Note that broute only works in some cases, such as brouting a specific host. 'Sometimes bridged, sometimes routed' usually causes various issues, such as ip addresses seemingly 'moving' to different host. What is the original intention of this table/chain if not pulling packets between other hosts out of the bridge and passing them through the IP and higher layers? No idea, I did not add this feature. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] brouted packet identified as PACKET_OTHERHOST blocked by higher protocol
Florian Westphal [mailto:f...@strlen.de] wrote: Maybe, but if you broute everything you might as well just remove the bridge... I want to be selective. My setup is a home router. So I can have ebtables rules for which traffic to (b)route and which to bridge, based on security/performance criteria. You can use -j redirect in ebtables broute table to force local MAC dnat (this also 'fixes' the pkttype to _HOST) if you really want to broute. I may be missing something obvious, but what is the normal case where using an ebtables 'broute' -j DROP rule does work? It seemed to me that without the fix all (b)routed packets would get lost in IP layer (unless also dnat or something is done in addition which changes the pkt_type value). What is the original intention of this table/chain if not pulling packets between other hosts out of the bridge and passing them through the IP and higher layers? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] brouted packet identified as PACKET_OTHERHOST blocked by higher protocol
Florian Westphal f...@strlen.de wrote: Yigal Reiss (yreiss) yre...@cisco.com wrote: The problem I'm trying to solve is that when packets being sent from one bridged interface to the other are brouted they get dropped by the IP layer. The reason is that the packet being raised has pkt_type of type PACKET_OTHERHOST. No, thats not the problem you're trying to solve. If you want to move OTHERHOST skbs, don't (b)route them? Whats the real issue that you're trying to solve? I want to (b)route them because I want to be able to inspect the packets in higher levels (through iptables or user space IPS). Once I do that (i.e. (b)route by applying an appropriate ebtables rule), the corresponding packets get dropped unless I apply the patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] brouted packet identified as PACKET_OTHERHOST blocked by higher protocol
Yigal Reiss (yreiss) yre...@cisco.com wrote: No, thats not the problem you're trying to solve. If you want to move OTHERHOST skbs, don't (b)route them? Whats the real issue that you're trying to solve? I want to (b)route them because I want to be able to inspect the packets in higher levels (through iptables or user space IPS). For nfqueue via iptables, use call-iptables sysctl? Alternatively, implement NFQUEUE support for NF_BRIDGE family, we'll need this eventually for nftables bridge family anyway. AF_PACKET should just 'work' without brouting. Once I do that (i.e. (b)route by applying an appropriate ebtables rule), the corresponding packets get dropped unless I apply the patch. Maybe, but if you broute everything you might as well just remove the bridge... You can use -j redirect in ebtables broute table to force local MAC dnat (this also 'fixes' the pkttype to _HOST) if you really want to broute. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
