From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Sun Feb 7 21:00:45 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388E55375E3 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DYhQ46YwYz3N07 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id A2F95537744; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pf@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999F9537647 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DYhQ40p6pz3N9K for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB6693099 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 117L0hE2050421 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:43 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from bugzilla@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 117L0hmc050420 for pf@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:43 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <202102072100.117L0hmc050420@kenobi.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: bugzilla set sender to bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org To: pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: Problem reports for pf@FreeBSD.org that need special attention Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:43 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.34 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 21:00:45 -0000 To view an individual PR, use: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=(Bug Id). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users, which need special attention. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. Status | Bug Id | Description ------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------- Open | 203735 | Transparent interception of ipv6 with squid and p Open | 237973 | pf: implement egress keyword to simplify rules ac 2 problems total for which you should take action. From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Tue Feb 9 14:50:59 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E528541131 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:50:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) Received: from plan-b.pwste.edu.pl (plan-b.pwste.edu.pl [IPv6:2001:678:618::40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "plan-b.pwste.edu.pl", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DZm6V0zRJz56MC for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:50:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) Received: from fomalhaut.potoki.eu ([IPv6:2001:470:71:d47:593b:876e:f:1387]) (authenticated bits=0) by plan-b.pwste.edu.pl (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 119EomfR043061 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 15:50:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=plan-b.pwste.edu.pl; s=plan-b-mailer; t=1612882248; bh=SwGLqSlpdSFi4tm1xFik+OApNLNrURPFnuz1/PstS2c=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=tAB03J8AeDipXx4S4s5eS96CLlW9UnKtBAaNKC0Bc0tuN+XRsRxYNWl6M/KW8WGWs Y8Sx1OELTBfE1B/dqiNt6ULjV5l8NZesvUHh4jUGzvBlHL6OLAHImeXt82Gt0aWz2Z B6A4xCRSpfJcDR0ghwS9lD6oQ7yjmfSYIz64hBMDt3bRPCv1Gh0NY6Mg86uFfwoRL/ 1yEnm9HhAkqxjuHuhNBDY6rpH4mCDTvDMeRat7pnxeOgw4uO7+NWU0bcobvxjfHkww zdaprVAOGCYWHCD350EWgXxSFWR0Ku6cUhE6PPglrH4+3oKgkP6ktQXMNJjFyka/SX d1g6HhVgXpvfQ== X-Authentication-Warning: plan-b.pwste.edu.pl: Host [IPv6:2001:470:71:d47:593b:876e:f:1387] claimed to be fomalhaut.potoki.eu To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org From: Marek Zarychta Subject: "set skip on lo" on 12.x and 13.0 Message-ID: <76015004-7980-fb5c-1cf8-60d7d745bdb9@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 15:50:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DZm6V0zRJz56MC X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=plan-b.pwste.edu.pl header.s=plan-b-mailer header.b=tAB03J8A; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=plan-b.pwste.edu.pl; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl has no SPF policy when checking 2001:678:618::40) smtp.mailfrom=zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.80 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[plan-b.pwste.edu.pl:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[plan-b.pwste.edu.pl,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[2001:678:618::40:from]; ASN(0.00)[asn:206006, ipnet:2001:678:618::/48, country:PL]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[plan-b.pwste.edu.pl:s=plan-b-mailer]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_MED(-2.00)[pwste.edu.pl:dkim]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-pf@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[2001:678:618::40:from:127.0.2.255]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-pf] X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 14:50:59 -0000 Dear list, I am observing changed behaviour of the rule "set skip on lo". This rule = previously allowed for communication between the host and the jail no=20 only on loopback interfaces, but also on shared network interfaces, for=20 example, if a host had address x.x.x.x/24 and jail had address=20 x.x.x.y/32 on the same NIC, the rule above allowed for communication=20 between the host and jail using x.x.x.x and x.x.x.y addresses. I am=20 considering jails without VNET enabled and using the same fib number.=20 Now to allow this kind of communication I had to add "pass quick on lo", = but I went out of free states rather quickly, so instead of increasing=20 the state limit, I have changed the method of communication between the=20 host and the jails to utilize only loopback addresses. It's rather not a regression but a change, some people might consider it = POLA violation, but probably won't if it gets widely announced. --=20 Marek Zarychta From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Tue Feb 9 14:56:01 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CADD54115E for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:56:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DZmDK0JK8z56cj; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:56:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [5.9.86.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.codepro.be", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: kp) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D850B109D; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:56:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: by venus.codepro.be (Postfix, authenticated sender kp) id 6FABA1B4E2; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 15:55:58 +0100 (CET) From: "Kristof Provost" To: "Marek Zarychta" Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "set skip on lo" on 12.x and 13.0 Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:55:57 +0100 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <76015004-7980-fb5c-1cf8-60d7d745bdb9@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> References: <76015004-7980-fb5c-1cf8-60d7d745bdb9@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 14:56:01 -0000 On 9 Feb 2021, at 15:50, Marek Zarychta wrote: > Dear list, > > I am observing changed behaviour of the rule "set skip on lo". This > rule previously allowed for communication between the host and the > jail no only on loopback interfaces, but also on shared network > interfaces, for example, if a host had address x.x.x.x/24 and jail had > address x.x.x.y/32 on the same NIC, the rule above allowed for > communication between the host and jail using x.x.x.x and x.x.x.y > addresses. I am considering jails without VNET enabled and using the > same fib number. Now to allow this kind of communication I had to add > "pass quick on lo", but I went out of free states rather quickly, so > instead of increasing the state limit, I have changed the method of > communication between the host and the jails to utilize only loopback > addresses. > > It's rather not a regression but a change, some people might consider > it POLA violation, but probably won't if it gets widely announced. > I’m not aware of the behaviour change you describe. However, there have been subtle issues around set skip on that may be confusing you. See #250994 / 0c156a3c32cd0d9168570da5686ddc96abcbbc5a for some of the details. Best regards, Kristof From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Tue Feb 9 15:44:49 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A34F54318B for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 15:44:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) Received: from plan-b.pwste.edu.pl (plan-b.pwste.edu.pl [IPv6:2001:678:618::40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "plan-b.pwste.edu.pl", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DZnJd2Jwxz3CQB; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 15:44:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) Received: from fomalhaut.potoki.eu ([IPv6:2001:470:71:d47:740e:ece5:579d:fcee]) (authenticated bits=0) by plan-b.pwste.edu.pl (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 119Fijle053711 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Feb 2021 16:44:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=plan-b.pwste.edu.pl; s=plan-b-mailer; t=1612885486; bh=3S/fk+UfGdY1kGmzhG70VSierQAxTisBVsD2FkkI0m8=; h=To:Cc:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To; b=lbgCvIVEfcgT62536VCm4fpQ/5JQjtNqA6afecLpdembqWjMGoViIBCjOhlhEUNzp QCtL/anoQ2fUGLWXbD3CxEylWVacslgt8W7Gc7jzVdy+MJK5kUmAdng9OpnVyOLDyl Amnc2qouARGbQoWkino47mRsvTtqjDFdG1N2hVGd6h23rWGQB2nAMEqGp+c6uIZUj9 av4NAktMAl4WXqhj2xBr+YuV/+leevhLPXrNSPRa13ycEG3wZf/k/0k8oA8JD5HJAk AFmFLRa43C+gmzHi/jdxcN6BQbpMXhriNzh/qQEe+U9MNYTJgrV35nZgy3wyG3rXfm O7rak1HgnycrA== X-Authentication-Warning: plan-b.pwste.edu.pl: Host [IPv6:2001:470:71:d47:740e:ece5:579d:fcee] claimed to be fomalhaut.potoki.eu To: Kristof Provost Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org References: <76015004-7980-fb5c-1cf8-60d7d745bdb9@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> From: Marek Zarychta Subject: Re: "set skip on lo" on 12.x and 13.0 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 16:44:45 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DZnJd2Jwxz3CQB X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:44:49 -0000 W dniu 09.02.2021 o=C2=A015:55, Kristof Provost pisze: > On 9 Feb 2021, at 15:50, Marek Zarychta wrote: >> Dear list, >> >> I am observing changed behaviour of the rule "set skip on lo". This=20 >> rule previously allowed for communication between the host and the=20 >> jail no only on loopback interfaces, but also on shared network=20 >> interfaces, for example, if a host had address x.x.x.x/24 and jail=20 >> had address x.x.x.y/32 on the same NIC, the rule above allowed for=20 >> communication between the host and jail using x.x.x.x and x.x.x.y=20 >> addresses. I am considering jails without VNET enabled and using the=20 >> same fib number. Now to allow this kind of communication I had to add = >> "pass quick on lo", but I went out of free states rather quickly, so=20 >> instead of increasing the state limit, I have changed the method of=20 >> communication between the host and the jails to utilize only loopback = >> addresses. >> >> It's rather not a regression but a change, some people might consider = >> it POLA violation, but probably won't if it gets widely announced. >> > I=E2=80=99m not aware of the behaviour change you describe. > > However, there have been subtle issues around set skip on =20 > that may be confusing you. > See #250994 / 0c156a3c32cd0d9168570da5686ddc96abcbbc5a for some of the = > details. > I have seen this fix, but probably never used on affected machine=20 12.2-STABLE after the MFC of this fix, I have transitioned to=20 13.0-STABLE instead. Anyway, both: 12.x-STABLE and 11.x-STABLE with "set = skip on lo" were allowing for such communication between jail and host=20 not only on 127.0.0.0/8 addresses but also on shared NIC addresses. The behaviour described above was happening with 13.0-STABLE regardless=20 of using set skip on the group or individual interfaces, I mean=C2=A0 "se= t=20 skip on lo" and "set skip on {lo0,lo1,lo2,lo3,....}". Now, to work=20 around this I have transitioned to using 127.0.0.0/8 only, but some=20 other people might get confused. Kind regards, --=20 Marek Zarychta