netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Support for wccp version 1 and 2 in ip_gre.c

To: Paul P Komkoff Jr <i@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Support for wccp version 1 and 2 in ip_gre.c
From: Lincoln Dale <ltd@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:07:50 +1000
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul P Komkoff Jr <i@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040914123951.GL4141@stingr.sgu.ru>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040914184652.03e24de0@171.71.163.14> <20040913051706.GB26337@stingr.sgu.ru> <20040911194108.GS28258@stingr.sgu.ru> <20040912170505.62916147.davem@davemloft.net> <20040913051706.GB26337@stingr.sgu.ru> <5.1.0.14.2.20040914184652.03e24de0@171.71.163.14>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 10:39 PM 14/09/2004, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote:
Replying to Lincoln Dale:
> the logic is correct, but it may make sense to call the appropriate
> netfilter hook again with the "unwrapped" GRE packet, as otherwise
> packets-inside-GRE represent a possible security hole where one can inject
> packets externally and bypass firewall rules.

From what I observe, netfilter hooks *are* called for unwrapped packets.
Either for usual IP packets  passed from GRE tunnel, or for demangled
wccp packets.

you probably want to ensure that the order of netfilter events are: 1. [packet comes in] 2. netfilter INPUT 3. [GRE decap] 4. [addressed to us?] Yes => netfilter INPUT No => netfilter FORWARD

i don't think that both (2) and (4) are done.

also just a minor nit: not all WCCP needs to be GRE-encoded; on high-performance switch/router platforms, only a layer-2 rewrite of the dst MAC addr is used instead of a layer-3 GRE tunnel. you may want the comment at line 609 to explicitly mention "WCCPv1 and WCCPv2 GRE Forwarding mode".


cheers,

lincoln.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>