From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3543FC43331 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7732085B for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727779AbfKGWv4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:51:56 -0500 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:59794 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725992AbfKGWvz (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:51:55 -0500 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id B439420A54F for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:51:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2575B8007 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:51:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id 8BC15FB362; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:51:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id D193EFB362; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:51:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 23:51:47 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (sys.soleta.eu [212.170.55.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6B974251480; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:51:47 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:51:49 +0100 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Lukas Wunner Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik , Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Martin Mares , Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next,RFC 0/5] Netfilter egress hook Message-ID: <20191107225149.5t4sg35b5gwuwawa@salvia> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 02:41:00PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > Introduce a netfilter egress hook to complement the existing ingress hook. > > User space support for nft is submitted in a separate patch. > > The need for this arose because I had to filter egress packets which do > not match a specific ethertype. The most common solution appears to be > to enslave the interface to a bridge and use ebtables, but that's > cumbersome to configure and comes with a (small) performance penalty. > An alternative approach is tc, but that doesn't afford equivalent > matching options as netfilter. A bit of googling reveals that more > people have expressed a desire for egress filtering in the past: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg50038.html > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/512371 > > I am first performing traffic control with sch_handle_egress() before > performing filtering with nf_egress(). That order is identical to > ingress processing. I'm wondering whether an inverse order would be > more logical or more beneficial. Among other things it would allow > marking packets with netfilter on egress before performing traffic > control based on that mark. Thoughts? Would you provide some numbers on the performance impact for this new hook? Thanks.