Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/2] net: Introducing socket mark receive socket option

[Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>]

Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> wrote:
> > Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This patch set introduces a new socket option for fetching the mark
> >> of skbs passed to sockets as ancillary data.
> >>
> >> A userspace program may wish to receive the mark of packets it
> >> receives, for example for distinguishing between different TPROXY
> >> diversion rules to the same userspace proxy socket.
> >
> > Hmm... Whats the use case?
> > Even if you cannot use multiple sockets for every divert rule,
> > TPROXY doesn't mangle payload; applications could use sockaddrs
> > returned by accept, getpeername, getsockname etc.  to figure out
> > which original port/address the packet was sent to?
> 
> Right. But that would mean the criteria for traffic diversion would need to
> be known to the application receiving the traffic.

For your solution to work the application needs to know about the TPROXY
rule set and how that is structured, no?

I don't see how that is 'better' than e.g. looking at dst port number.

> Also, the feature has use-cases outside of TPROXY as the skb->mark may be set
> by other mechanisms (including SO_MARK from user space).

Right, but to me it seems very hacky to use SO_MARK as some kind of OOB signal.

It won't work depending on loaded ruleset, it won't work with non-localhost
traffic and it won't work when other application runs in another network
namespace.

Seems such facility would be limited to some pre-configured distribution where
users don't run own software and make no changes to the default system
setup.

> For example, a user space daemon can receive traffic from multiple
> applications using a single socket and distinguish between different traffic groups
> according to the packet mark.

Right, but it might as well use SO_PEERCRED to identify the other pid, right?