From: Bart De Schuymer <bart.de.schuymer@pandora.be>
To: coreteam@netfilter.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@gnu.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: [RFC] place to put bridge-netfilter specific data in the skbuff
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 21:59:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200210142159.49290.bart.de.schuymer@pandora.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200210141953.38933.bart.de.schuymer@pandora.be>
Hello netfilter team and others,
DaveM suggested I talk to you (netfilter team) about this.
What's bridge-netfilter: the mapping of the IPv4 onto the bridge hooks, to
make a powerful bridging firewall.
The problem: in the current br-nf patch we add 3 fields to the skbuff, which
is (as expected) not acceptable. So we need to find a way to solve this.
We cannot use the control buffer to save this data because tcp uses it while
we still need the brnf data.
The solution I like best (and David seems to not mind) is adding one pointer
to a struct nf_bridge_info in the skbuff. So, adding one new member.
Another suggestion by David is this:
struct nf_ct_info {
union {
struct nf_conntrack *master;
struct nf_bridge_info *brinfo;
} u;
};
But I don't think this will not work because master will be in use while we
need brinfo.
So another solution could be this:
struct nf_ct_info {
struct nf_conntrack *master;
struct nf_bridge_info *brinfo;
};
But I don't know anything about the intricacies of adding this.
Do you have any other suggestions? Comments? Help?
The current patch was already posted on lkml so I won't repeat it.
Also, could you have a look at the current patch, to spot any other
obstacles/things you don't like?
The patch is available at:
http://users.pandora.be/bart.de.schuymer/ebtables/br-nf/bridge-nf-0.0.10-dev-pre1-against-2.5.42.diff
There is a little text file explaining the source code more in-depth here:
http://users.pandora.be/bart.de.schuymer/ebtables/br-nf/bridge-nf-0.0.10-dev-pre1-against-2.5.39-comments.txt
A high-level explanation of what we're doing is here:
http://users.pandora.be/bart.de.schuymer/ebtables/br_fw_ia/br_fw_ia.html
Another question:
I've been told it is the general concensus that this bridge firewall should be
compiled in the kernel if CONFIG_NETFILTER=y. Or should it be a user option?
It is predicted that using a user option will give alot of questions about
the bridge firewall not working.
Do you have any strong opinion about this?
--
cheers,
Bart
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-14 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-11 22:32 802.1q + device removal causing hang Simon Kirby
2002-09-11 22:31 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-12 6:36 ` [PATCH] ebtables - Ethernet bridge tables, for 2.5.34 Bart De Schuymer
2002-09-12 23:04 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-13 3:20 ` Bart De Schuymer
2002-09-13 4:29 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-13 6:12 ` Bart De Schuymer
2002-09-13 6:09 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-13 12:45 ` bridge-netfilter patch (was: Re: [PATCH] ebtables - Ethernet bridge tables, for 2.5.34) Lennert Buytenhek
2002-09-13 18:22 ` bridge-netfilter patch David S. Miller
2002-09-14 7:05 ` Bart De Schuymer
2002-09-16 3:35 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-16 21:41 ` Bart De Schuymer
2002-09-16 23:21 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 19:10 ` Bart De Schuymer
2002-09-17 19:35 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-15 21:27 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2002-09-16 6:50 ` [PATCH] ebtables - Ethernet bridge tables, for 2.5.35 Bart De Schuymer
2002-09-16 23:01 ` David S. Miller
2002-10-14 18:05 ` [RFC] bridge-nf -- map IPv4 hooks onto bridge hooks, vs 2.5.42 Bart De Schuymer
2002-10-14 18:01 ` David S. Miller
2002-10-14 18:32 ` bert hubert
2002-10-14 18:58 ` Bart De Schuymer
2002-10-14 19:02 ` David S. Miller
2002-10-14 19:29 ` Bart De Schuymer
2002-10-14 19:26 ` David S. Miller
2002-10-20 22:20 ` [RFC] bridge-nf -- map IPv4 hooks onto bridge hooks, vs 2.5.44 Bart De Schuymer
2002-10-20 22:19 ` David S. Miller
2002-10-22 23:40 ` Bart De Schuymer
2002-10-25 6:01 ` [PATCH][RFC] bridge-nf -- map IPv4 hooks onto bridge hooks - try 3, " Bart De Schuymer
2002-10-25 6:22 ` [netfilter-core] " Harald Welte
2002-10-28 13:02 ` David S. Miller
[not found] ` <200210141953.38933.bart.de.schuymer@pandora.be>
2002-10-14 19:59 ` Bart De Schuymer [this message]
2002-10-24 8:16 ` [netfilter-core] [RFC] place to put bridge-netfilter specific data in the skbuff Harald Welte
2002-10-24 8:15 ` David S. Miller
2002-10-24 12:22 ` Harald Welte
2002-09-12 23:49 ` 802.1q + device removal causing hang Simon Kirby
2002-09-12 23:53 ` David S. Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200210142159.49290.bart.de.schuymer@pandora.be \
--to=bart.de.schuymer@pandora.be \
--cc=buytenh@gnu.org \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®