Re: Use of oifname in input chains

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

 



On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:32:30PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Feature because one could add the rule to a non-base chain and jump to
> > > it from any hook to reduce duplication in ruleset. We would have to
> > > check rules in the target chain while validating the rule containing the
> > > jump.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > 
> > How does this behave in iptables BTW? I think iptables simply allows
> > this, but it won't ever match obviously.
> 
> iptables userspace will reject iptables -A INPUT -o foo.
> -A FOO -o foo will "work", even if we only have a -j FOO from INPUT.
> 
> I don't think its worth to add tracking for this to kernel:
> 
> new chain C
> meta oifname bla added to C
> jump added from output to C
> jump added from input to C   # should this fail? why?
> 
> new chain C
> jump added from input to C
> meta oifname added to C	     # same q: why should this fail?

There's tracking infrastructure for this already in place, right? It's
just a matter to check for this from nft_meta_get_validate().



[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux