Re: [PATCH nft] evaluate: add range specified flag setting (missing NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED)

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

 



I sorry, my e-mail client goes bananaz.

> Sergey reports:
>
> With nf_tables it is not possible to use port range for masquerading.
> Masquerade statement has option "to [:port-port]" which give no effect
> to translation behavior. But it must change source port of packet to
> one from ":port-port" range.
>
> My network:
>
>         +-----------------------------+
>         |   ROUTER                    |
>         |                             |
>         |                   Masquerade|
>         | 10.0.0.1            1.1.1.1 |
>         | +------+           +------+ |
>         | | eth1 |           | eth2 | |
>         +-+--^---+-----------+---^--+-+
>              |                   |
>              |                   |
>         +----v------+     +------v----+
>         |           |     |           |
>         | 10.0.0.2  |     |  1.1.1.2  |
>         |           |     |           |
>         |PC1        |     |PC2        |
>         +-----------+     +-----------+
>
> For testing i used rule like this:
>
>         rule ip nat POSTROUTING oifname eth2 masquerade to :666
>
> Run netcat for 1.1.1.2 667(UDP) and get dump from PC2:
>
>         15:22:25.591567 a8:f9:4b:aa:08:44 > a8:f9:4b:ac:e7:8f, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 60: 1.1.1.1.34466 > 1.1.1.2.667: UDP, length 1
>
> Address translation works fine, but source port are not belongs to
> specified range.
>
> I see in similar source code (i.e. nft_redir.c, nft_nat.c) that
> there is setting NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED flag. After adding this,
> repeat test for kernel with this patch, and get dump:
>
>         16:16:22.324710 a8:f9:4b:aa:08:44 > a8:f9:4b:ac:e7:8f, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 60: 1.1.1.1.666 > 1.1.1.2.667: UDP, length 1
>
> Now it is works fine.
>
> Reported-by: Sergey Marinkevich <s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Sergey, could you try this userspace patch instead? Thanks.
I tried this patch with equal environment but another

net(192.168.122.0/24). Router uses vanilla kernel v5.4.19.
Translation is the same.

    12:59:11.599887 08:00:27:ec:9c:b3 > 52:54:00:57:d2:7d, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 60: 192.168.122.38.666 > 192.168.122.1.667: UDP, length 4

I think i have to add this tag:

Tested-by: Sergey Marinkevich <s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
>  src/evaluate.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
> index 4a23b231c74d..d0e712dc02f0 100644
> --- a/src/evaluate.c
> +++ b/src/evaluate.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>  #include <linux/netfilter_arp.h>
>  #include <linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h>
>  #include <linux/netfilter/nf_synproxy.h>
> +#include <linux/netfilter/nf_nat.h>
>  #include <linux/netfilter_ipv4.h>
>  #include <netinet/ip_icmp.h>
>  #include <netinet/icmp6.h>
> @@ -2950,6 +2951,8 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_nat(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt)
>          err = nat_evaluate_transport(ctx, stmt, &stmt->nat.proto);
>          if (err < 0)
>              return err;
> +
> +        stmt->nat.flags |= NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED;
>      }
>
>      stmt->flags |= STMT_F_TERMINAL;
> --
> 2.11.0




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

  Powered by Linux