-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
IPv6 firewall: accept packets from related and established connections #10970
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
@blueorangutan package |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 4.20 #10970 +/- ##
==========================================
Coverage 16.14% 16.15%
- Complexity 13253 13269 +16
==========================================
Files 5656 5657 +1
Lines 497893 497772 -121
Branches 60374 60364 -10
==========================================
+ Hits 80405 80408 +3
+ Misses 408529 408413 -116
+ Partials 8959 8951 -8
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
oh, I remember this issue, I had a fix more than one year ago. good finding @winterhazel |
|
@weizhouapache , does that mean lgty? |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@JoaoJandre a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14043 |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14105 |
weizhouapache
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
code lgtm
Not tested it yet
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-13739)
|
shwstppr
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
code lgtm
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@weizhouapache a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✔️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 14852 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@weizhouapache a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
[SF] Trillian Build Failed (tid-14212) |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@weizhouapache a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14868 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
Tested with Ipv6 network and VPC SSH did not work prior to this change, it worked with this change an example of nft rules |
apache#10970) * IPv6 firewall: accept related packets and packets from established connections * Remove rule from input chain
Description
The VR's firewall service automatically accepts packets from related and established connections when using IPv4. However, it does not for IPv6. Due to this, even if the egress rules allow a VM to send requests to a machine from outside the isolated network, it will not receive the response unless operators have allowed all ingress for the (sometimes dynamically allocated) port.
This PR adds a rule to the VR's IPv6 forward chain accepting response traffic (ingress from related and established connections), even if the operator has not explicitly allowed all ingress for the ports, thus matching the IPv4 firewall's behavior.
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
How Has This Been Tested?
I introduced an IPv6 range to my environment.
I created a network offering for IPv6.
I created an isolated network with the network offering.
I added a VM to the network.
Then, I performed the following tests:
I validated that the VR had nftables rules in the forward and input chains allowing the ingress of related packets and packets from established connections.
Inside the VM, I tried to download a file from a machine outside the isolated network using IPv6. I validated that the download did not begin, because the egress traffic was not allowed.
I allowed the egress for ports 80 and 443.
Inside the VM, I tried to download a file from a machine outside the isolated network using IPv6 again. This time, the file was download successfully. Before the changes, the file would not be downloaded, because the VR was rejecting the response traffic.
I tried to login into the VM using SSH and IPv6. I validated that it was not possible because the ingress traffic for port 22 was not allowed.
I allowed ingress for port 22, and tried to login into the VM using SSH and IPv6 one more time. This time, I was able to access the VM successfully.