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=-0.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 041B7C3A59F for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E521206B7 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:28:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="r1tV3YNP" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5E521206B7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 83f67a61; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:28:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 60870d03 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 20:04:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 7edd4189 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 20:04:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id l7so32346395ioj.6 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 13:04:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QJT03wHi/loFixT9UHkcrJySzyFPj+ubbvLC979BQWc=; b=r1tV3YNP78IA/RenhN8RmysbW8P+TrZiMsKyEv6UQkilFL3BK4KBvRHWe41J27JaOe 3vDI3oMFldif0+V9sO/pGdgzK55k2p9y4fWxiCaajVgaZ7mLlvj1SEQmzAOmYU13o9Mv aLPgQCDc38BNHimsLvc+RJXe8h9EQjeog4AD2ZiyqU8iLntt/c1CA1rstLqhfyXuH48z uYTOCpDH8mcGoA8sgp6MpYlxXaZTXm33vCrCdK1w8KXr8mzPwoKqCQKSuwp24LWLg722 5ZzhEoKjeolYNaY3veLAlmwHkGRENKJki9P6UzDqNvPkwuRKaSKz2s11CTNrmP1L6Zuu zMJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QJT03wHi/loFixT9UHkcrJySzyFPj+ubbvLC979BQWc=; b=ZwHPOl1lN1mw0gPjOOVrSZm4+SOtS8CzlXmuHhb0f3OmnHwTXLXrVgOsh9KGwp7ijl D99UoFAqUngkh/uUjR9idMZ6jBqfa7bcjig11OzioXeNRiG4DtbwF+ZTvsl+HI1SHsSD X/rYK5AZBFsJ6vZOvSLL7sbXRXxVdfclGAUyTD7whmXATouoE5oWkQesuxpIGyE79r5T z6tWfS3MkL5tbXIBeawySxMTBZ+cjw7YQ3X3tJz99wsmecgNNsPTYTb9ssY8YzcAHeMf Ep1oMGSF8f3lQ/b4CktQ785PCNkULHalwhQKopBLp2EJtxZc+nWX0FQ1vtt8hYumrMoF N+fQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW7Hbl8KTsXnhXaZ1frcfiFwIw7hiL03iVkHVzkNSBsmQTx0Xpd JCd+t2s+5SovYjypMM3jCqapHVJDtQE4OLwt2XoxkMxuoss= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzapctnkOy+f0zhikJOAmQ8ZSUo4tWMRW1uyxGZImS9OPSTu5iiHihlH5tyHeRsOCO7QSd9yvd1olRfXhpUps= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:a502:: with SMTP id 2mr13428292iog.269.1566763442605; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 13:04:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Vasili Pupkin Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:04:06 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Linux kernel 5 different behavior To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:28:33 +0200 Cc: WireGuard mailing list X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" Usage of fwmark is my current workaround. If the same user id of an outer packets is not a bug then ignore it. On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:07 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:03 PM Vasili Pupkin wrote: > > Yes. On kernel version 4, outer packets (i.e. encrypted packets) are > > sent from privileged user > > account credentials so they pass the iptables sandbox. On kernel 5 > > they inherit owner id of the user who sent unencrypted packets. > > Can you use the `fwmark` option and adjust your rules to match on > !1234 or the like? _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard