Re: Strange behavior with ipset not matching on public range

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

 



On Mon, 27 May 2013, Jimmy Thrasibule wrote:

> > What is your ipset version? You should post iptables rules in 
> > iptables-save format...
> 
> # ipset -V
> ipset v6.12.1, protocol version: 6
> 
> And here are the rules corresponding to my previous iptables output:
> 
> -A FW_OUT -p icmp -j CTRLOUT
> -A FW_OUT -m set --match-set fw_iface_all src,dst  -j FW_OUT_common   # Match
> -A FW_OUT -m set --match-set fw_iface_pub src,dst  -j FW_OUT_pub      # No match
> -A FW_OUT -o eth1 -s 217.x.x.122/32 -d any/0 -j FW_OUT_pub            # Match
> -A FW_OUT -m set --match-set fw_iface_priv src,dst -j FW_OUT_priv     # Match
> -A FW_OUT -m comment --comment "EOF" -j DROP

I think you should upgrade: some drivers doesn't zero pad interface names 
and than can fool ipset up to 6.12.1. It was fixed in 6.13.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlecsik.jozsef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux