[Firehol-support] message from xt_physdev when running firehol in bridge configuration

[Phineas Gage]

Thanks Costa, that does stop the warning messages for me. Now I’m verifying everything works as expected, but I’m still trying to figure out the right way to specify rules for bridges. My setup is:

eth0 <> br0 <> eth1

My questions are:

1) In this case, I should not need interface definitions for eth0 and eth1 right? Neither has an IP address, since they’re bridged, and adding interface definitions for them doesn't seem to do anything.

2) For interface definitions for bridges, when I have:

interface46 br0 bridge
   # Rules for clients and servers in and out of br0 go here, and are working, but how do I add rules that should ONLY work on eth1 or eth0?
   # Do I specify two interfaces, for example: "interface46 br0 bridgeout physin eth0 physout eth1” and "interface46 br0 bridgein physin eth1 physout eth0”?
   # And in that case do I still need “interface46 br0 bridge”? I locked myself out of my firewall a couple of times so it might be easier to ask what’s right.

Phineas

> On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:01 AM, Tsaousis, Costa <costa at tsaousis.gr> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I just pushed a version of firehol that adds these:
> 
> --physdev-is-bridged in routers
> --physdev-is-in at the input of interfaces
> --physdev-is-out at the output of interfaces
> 
> I verified it generates the proper statements for both interfaces and routers.
> I can't check if it works though. Please check it and let us know.
> 
> There is one issue with helpers (NAT, marks, etc). In that case, it
> will assume --physdev-is-bridged only if both physin and physout are
> given to the firehol statement. Otherwise, it will use --physdev-is-in
> for physin and --physdev-is-out for physout. I am not sure if this has
> any implications. This might be an issue in rare cases (example:
> marking packets routed, using just physin), but I can't think of an
> easy fix now. So, if you need physin/physout in helpers (statements
> before interfaces and routers), please report a few use cases to help
> us figure out how to solve it.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Costa
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Tsaousis, Costa <costa at tsaousis.gr> wrote:
>> Hi JT.
>> 
>> Thanks for the tip.
>> New options available:
>> 
>> physdev match options:
>> [!] --physdev-in inputname[+]          bridge port name ([+] for wildcard)
>> [!] --physdev-out outputname[+]        bridge port name ([+] for wildcard)
>> [!] --physdev-is-in                    arrived on a bridge device
>> [!] --physdev-is-out                   will leave on a bridge device
>> [!] --physdev-is-bridged               it's a bridged packet
>> 
>> In your example you have used --physdev-is-bridged
>> As I understand it, we have to use:
>> 
>> --physdev-is-bridged in routers
>> --physdev-is-in at the input of interfaces
>> --physdev-is-out at the output of interfaces
>> 
>> Since I cannot test it, I need your help to figure this out.
>> Do you agree?
>> 
>> Costa
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:26 PM, JT <admin at jtlabs.net> wrote:
>>> I'm having the same problem using bridged traffic. My resolution has
>>> been to write my own manual iptables entries in firehol.conf.
>>> 
>>> vif+  <> br0 <> br1<> eth1
>>>          /\
>>>          \/
>>>         eth0
>>> 
>>> br0 and br1 have physical address associated with them (eth0/vif+ and
>>> eth1 respectively). Whenever I try to route or create interface rules
>>> with a physout/physin I get the syslog message (even though it is
>>> bridged traffic). Please let me know if it's user error.
>>> 
>>> For example, firehol.conf has:
>>> router vm2inet inface vif+ outface br0 physout eth0
>>>    route all               accept
>>> 
>>> which generates:
>>> "xt_physdev: using --physdev-out in the OUTPUT, FORWARD and POSTROUTING
>>> chains for non-bridged traffic is not supported anymore."
>>> 
>>> instead I use:
>>> iptables -I FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged --physdev-in vif+
>>> --physdev-out eth0 -j ACCEPT
>>> 
>>> So far any combination of inface/outface/physin/physout generates the
>>> message. Let me know what other information I can provide.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> JT
>>> 
>>> On 11/18/2014 9:12 AM, Tsaousis, Costa wrote:
>>>> Hi Phineas,
>>>> 
>>>> Can you trace it down?  Are you using physin/out on non-bridged traffic only?
>>>> Try to run a few commands by hand to check which ones complain.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Costa
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Phineas Gage <phineas919 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’m getting this message many times in my syslog when running firehol:
>>>>> 
>>>>> xt_physdev: using --physdev-out in the OUTPUT, FORWARD and POSTROUTING chains for non-bridged traffic is not supported anymore.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This happens only when I use either the ‘physin’ or ‘physout’ keywords on either my router definitions or route subcommands for the br0 (bridge) interface. If I omit those keywords it doesn’t happen. Can I still use ‘physin’ and ‘physout’ with my bridge somehow? They’re useful for knowing which direction the traffic is going through the bridge...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Phineas
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Firehol-support mailing list
>>>>> Firehol-support at lists.firehol.org
>>>>> http://lists.firehol.org/mailman/listinfo/firehol-support
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Firehol-support mailing list
>>>> Firehol-support at lists.firehol.org
>>>> http://lists.firehol.org/mailman/listinfo/firehol-support
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Firehol-support mailing list
>>> Firehol-support at lists.firehol.org
>>> http://lists.firehol.org/mailman/listinfo/firehol-support
> _______________________________________________
> Firehol-support mailing list
> Firehol-support at lists.firehol.org
> http://lists.firehol.org/mailman/listinfo/firehol-support