Linux Netfilter discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Cc: netfilter@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bridge-nf-call-iptables: checking bridge vs. IP context?
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 01:24:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210329232423.GF2742@otheros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210329190255.GE8998@breakpoint.cc>

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 09:02:55PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> wrote:
> > I'm wondering whether I'm currently overlooking a simple solution
> > for the following:
> > 
> > When setting bridge-nf-call-iptables = 1, is there a simple way to
> > check within one iptables rule whether it matched from a bridge
> > netfilter hook or from an IP netfilter hook?
> 
> What is the use case? I would try to not use nf-call-iptables if possible.

The use case is the following: I would like to use openNDS
(captive portal) between bridge ports. As is it comes with a set
of iptables rules. And I have the OpenWrt firewall with another
set of iptables rules.

Ideally I would want to avoid major modifications to either of
them.

For instance it would be great if I could avoid porting the
iptables rules of openNDS to ebtables, to avoid the maintenance
burden of keeping the iptables and ebtables version in sync. And
actually conditionally, when bridge-nf-call-iptables is set, replacing
any "-i" and "-o" on br-lan with --physdev-{in,out} on the bridge ports
in openNDS already works quite well.

Now I'm wondering if it would be possible to conditionally, when
bridge-nf-call-iptables is set, add something like a
"! --physdev-in-bridge-context" to all OpenWrt firewall rules. So
that any rule in the OpenWrt firewall would behave as if I
had bridge-nf-call-iptables=0. Again with the goal to avoid having
to maintain a heavilly modified OpenWrt firewall rule set.

> 
> If its a bridge netfiler hook, its only visible in ebtables.

> If its a "native" IP netfilter hook, the skb has no bridge netfilter
> extension, --physdev-is-in/out will never match.

Ah! Okay, so adding something like
"-m physdev ! --physdev-is-in" to all OpenWrt firewall rules should work?

So from a bridge netfilter hook "--physdev-in" will always either
point to a bridge port or the bridge interface itself?
And "--physdev-is-in" will always be true?

And in "native" IP netfilter hooks "--physdev-in" will never match
and "--physdev-is-in" will always be false?

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-29 23:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-29 18:08 bridge-nf-call-iptables: checking bridge vs. IP context? Linus Lüssing
2021-03-29 19:02 ` Florian Westphal
2021-03-29 23:24   ` Linus Lüssing [this message]
2021-03-30 17:33     ` Florian Westphal

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=20210329232423.GF2742@otheros \
    --to=linus.luessing@c0d3.blue \
    --cc=fw@strlen.de \
    --cc=netfilter@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