mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julio Sanchez Fernandez <j_sanchez@stl.es>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Transparent proxies and binding to foreign addresses
Date: 25 Jul 2001 21:09:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2lmlcakrq.fsf@j-sanchez-p.stl.es> (raw)


I have been using transparent proxies on Linux for a long time, very
possibly longer than anyone else, since I wrote a extremely crude hack
that served me well back 1995.

I mean, I am very fond of transparent proxies and I do things with
them that are extremely difficult to achieve at the kernel level.  I
also think I am pretty much aware of their problems and limitations
and, thus, resort to other techniques here and there.  But I use
proxies everytime unless I cannot afford them.

Most people think of transparent proxies as programs that just catch
connections and redirect them to other places.  That's good and it is
what Squid does, it just pretends to be the server to the client and
completes the service somehow.

But I also have scenarios where I absolutely need to pretend both to
be the server to the client and the client to the server.  That means
I need to create a socket, bind to it with a foreign address and
connect it to somewhere else.  A common use for this is the
transparent stunnel.  If the illusion is not preserved, the server
gets no idea of the origin and thus, cannot use it for authorization
or audit.  Even not so long ago, I had something like this as a part
of a pop-before-smtp setup where this working was critical.

This mechanism has worked since I originally wrote my kludge up to
2.2.x but, from what I can gather, it does not work anymore in 2.4.x.

Could someone explain to me what was the rationale for dropping this?
Is it incompatible with the deep magic in netfilter?  Was it declared
"evil" or something?  Or was it simply that no one needed it and was
lost in the rewrite until someone steps forward?

In the same line, how much effort would it entail to write the code to
put it back?  And, finally, are there philosophical problems that
would make it unacceptable for the standard kernel?

Thanks in advance,

Julio

             reply	other threads:[~2001-07-25 19:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-07-25 19:09 Julio Sanchez Fernandez [this message]
2001-07-27  2:15 ` Nerijus Baliunas
2001-07-26 19:41   ` Rob Landley
2001-07-27  7:16   ` Julio Sanchez Fernandez
2001-07-31 18:13     ` Nerijus Baliunas
     [not found]     ` <200107311820.UAA1709621@mail.takas.lt>
2001-08-01  6:54       ` Julio Sánchez Fernández

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=m2lmlcakrq.fsf@j-sanchez-p.stl.es \
    --to=j_sanchez@stl.es \
    --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®