Volker Sauer wrote:
99% of my rules on all my firewalls are like that:
$IPTABLES -A FORWARD -i $BR_INT -m physdev --physdev-in $IF_INT
--physdev-out $IF_DMZ -s $ZAPHOD -j ACCEPT
IF_INT (eth1) and IF_DMZ (vlan3) are both members of BR_INT (br-intern):
fw1: ~ # brctl show
br-intern 8000.000d88cd28c1 yes eth1
vlan3
This means, that all rules like that are valid even with the new concept
of netfilter, right?? But why do I get error messages like quoted in my
first mail for these rules - it *is* bridged traffic inside *one*
bridge!
And: I don't see how --physdev-is-bridged should help, since it's a
match and not a command to the kernel saying: "this *is* bridged
traffic". It the kernel does not see this by itself,
--physdev-is-bridged doesn't help.
Whether you believe it or not, this is the only way to tell
the physdev match that the rule only affects purely bridged
traffic.
If my arguments are correct, I suggest the following improvement:
In case someone is using physdev in OUTPUT, display the message like it
is now: "using --physdev-out in the OUTPUT chains for non-bridged traffic
is not supported anymore".
In case it is used inside FORWARD, check if all physdev interfaces are
members of the same bridge. If yes, accept the rule, because then it is
allowed to use it!!! (Which is the case all the thousands of rules in
my firewalls except the 5 that I sent to this list :-().
Does not work since one of the devices might be put in a different
bridge after you loaded the rules.
If no, display a message like this:
"physdev match: using --physdev-out in the FORWARD chains is only
allowed if all physical interfaces are members of the same bridge."
Feel free to send a patch to improve the error messages.
-
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
