/* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting! */



I sent a message containing a new masquerading patch to these lists, and
it was way too large at least for linux-kernel. I'm sending this message
to clarify. The necessary files are at http://mail.helixsystems.com/~masq/

Also, in case you got the original message, the mbfw.c and ip_masq_mbfw.c
files were an old version. Don't use them. Use the ones from the web site.

original text follows (more or less)
---
 The following patch is a new version of the 2-dir masq patch I submitted
 to the kernel list about two months ago. It works very differently this
 time:
 packets coming in on 2-dir connections are marked with an skb flag, which
 is interpreted in the forward chain to force masquerading of that packet,
 with a second entry created for the other masq direction, also with the
 2-dir flag set. Everything is defined out so that it can be a kernel
 compile option.

 The other patch is to ip_masq_app (the app support) and allows modules to
 key into the system by source port rather than dest port, so it works for
 servers behind a firewall being accessed from outside. This is also
 controlled by a #define. The FTP module has code to support masqing of
 passive FTP.

 While I was at it, I fixed a serious problem in the FTP module wherein it
 assumes the TCP data begins after the TCP header with no options in
 between. The following is a Bad Thing:

 data = (char *)&th[1];

 this is the Right Thing:

 data = (char *)th;
 data += th->doff*4;

 ...assuming that proper bounds checking is also being performed which it
 is here. This fix is not #defined; it is included regardless of the
 options set. The problem affected the passive FTP specifically, but it is
 a bug no matter which way it is sliced.

 There's one bug in this patch - the tcp/udp checksum code in masq is
 conditioned out if the 2-dir option is enabled, because it wasn't working
 the second time through. This is a bug somewhere, but I need someone to
 explain to me exactly what it's doing and what all the checksum-related
 fields in the skb are... thanks.

 Oh yes: this _has_ been tested under pretty heavy load. :-)

 Any chance of seeing this in 2.2.1[34]?
 (btw: my employer waives all rights to this code. it's yours.)




_______________________________________________
Masq maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin requests can be handled at http://www.indyramp.com/masq-list/
or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

PLEASE read the HOWTO and search the archives before posting.
You can start your search at http://www.indyramp.com/masq/
Please keep general linux/unix/pc/internet questions off the list.

Reply via email to