Re: WIP: packet inspection in PF

2010-06-13 Thread Bret S. Lambert
Is there some reason that divert sockets (``man divert'') can't do this for you? On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 03:27:57AM +0400, Vadim Jukov wrote: Hello, tech@, especially PF hackers! This is a work-in-progress patch that implements direct packet inspection in PF. This is needed in the cases

Re: PF FAQ example ruleset

2010-06-13 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:36:52PM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote: The rule: pass in on $int_if inet proto tcp to any port ftp \ rdr-to 127.0.0.1 port 8021 in the example ruleset on http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/example1.html does not work for active ftp from NATted hosts. There are

Re: PF FAQ example ruleset

2010-06-13 Thread Rod Whitworth
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:44:26 +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:36:52PM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote: The rule: pass in on $int_if inet proto tcp to any port ftp \ rdr-to 127.0.0.1 port 8021 in the example ruleset on http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/example1.html does

Re: PF FAQ example ruleset

2010-06-13 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 05:31:39PM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote: if the point of that rule is the same as the point of the rule in ftp-proxy(8), then the rule should really match the man page (which uses quick) or vice versa. Note that the ftp-proxy manpage does pass in quick with no

Re: WIP: packet inspection in PF

2010-06-13 Thread Bret S. Lambert
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:41:01PM +0400, Vadim Zhukov wrote: Hm-m-m, could you explain better, please? I don't see the way to do such filtering with diverting, excluding writing a proxy app listening all the traffic. Why do you assume I'm excluding a proxy app? 2010/6/13, Bret S. Lambert

Re: patch for wss(4), pss(4), ym(4) and gus(4) needs testing

2010-06-13 Thread Jacob Meuser
ym(4) needs the following in addition. I haven't gotten any test results on this yet ... a lot of the code in audioce(4) and audiocs(4) in sparc64 and sparc come from here ... the plan is to split the MI code out and share instead of having it copied in several places. so, this is not just for

Re: WIP: packet inspection in PF

2010-06-13 Thread Vadim Zhukov
No, no, it's me who is excluding this way. :) Moving packets through userland and reimplementing states in the app is not the simpliest, most reliable and - last but not least - fastest way, IMHO. Please prove me if I'm wrong. 2010/6/13, Bret S. Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jun 13,

Re: PF FAQ example ruleset

2010-06-13 Thread Rod Whitworth
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:48:49 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2010/06/13 17:31, Rod Whitworth wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:44:26 +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:36:52PM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote: The rule: pass in on $int_if inet proto tcp to any port ftp \

Re: WIP: packet inspection in PF

2010-06-13 Thread Vadim Zhukov
Thank you, I got the point. Yes, my patch is intended for some simple case only, when writing a program for filtering is a little bit overkill. I understand that there is no silver bullet, and, of course, separate proxy app is needed in complex cases. Well, there are reasons having both rdr-to and

Re: WIP: packet inspection in PF

2010-06-13 Thread Vadim Jukov
13 June 2010 P3. 19:14:39 Vadim Zhukov wrote: Thank you, I got the point. Yes, my patch is intended for some simple case only, when writing a program for filtering is a little bit overkill. I understand that there is no silver bullet, and, of course, separate proxy app is needed in complex

Re: WIP: packet inspection in PF

2010-06-13 Thread Matthew Dempsky
2010/6/12 Vadim Jukov persg...@gmail.com: This is a work-in-progress patch that implements direct packet inspection in PF. Is there a reason not to reuse bpf for this?