Bug 672690 - iptables labeling of packets seems broken for address 255.255.255.255
Summary: iptables labeling of packets seems broken for address 255.255.255.255
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: kernel
Version: 19
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Neil Horman
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-01-25 21:06 UTC by Daniel Walsh
Modified: 2013-05-15 15:38 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-05-15 15:38:15 UTC
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)
iptables rules (7.35 KB, text/plain)
2011-01-25 21:08 UTC, Daniel Walsh
no flags Details
selinux policy (1.06 KB, application/txt)
2011-01-25 21:18 UTC, Daniel Walsh
no flags Details

Description Daniel Walsh 2011-01-25 21:06:00 UTC
time->Tue Jan 25 16:04:34 2011
type=AVC msg=audit(1295989474.550:354): avc:  denied  { recv } for  src=68 daddr=255.255.255.255 dest=67 netif=eth0 scontext=system_u:system_r:dnsmasq_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tcontext=system_u:object_r:external_packet_t:s0 tclass=packet

Comment 1 Daniel Walsh 2011-01-25 21:08:26 UTC
Created attachment 475276 [details]
iptables rules

Comment 2 Daniel Walsh 2011-01-25 21:18:59 UTC
Created attachment 475282 [details]
selinux policy

Comment 3 Fedora End Of Life 2013-04-03 15:35:50 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle.
Changing version to '19'.

(As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development
cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.)

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19

Comment 4 Justin M. Forbes 2013-04-05 19:52:20 UTC
Is this still an issue with the 3.9 kernels in F19?

Comment 5 Neil Horman 2013-04-19 17:42:12 UTC
I think thats the wrong syntax for a rule.  you apply the specified mask (in your rule, its 32) to the incomming source address, and then check to see if it matches your supplied address (in your rule 255.255.255.255).  If they match you jump to the designated target (INTERNAL).  That said, no valid ip address will ever match 255.255.255.255 when you apply an all 1's mask to it.  I think you're intention was to match all incomming source addresses, isn't it?  If thats the case, what you want is a rule that says:

-A <CHAIN> -s 0.0.0.0/0 -j INTERNAL

That will match on all source addresses.  Or was your intention something else?

Comment 6 Josh Boyer 2013-05-15 13:17:38 UTC
Dan?

Comment 7 Daniel Walsh 2013-05-15 15:38:15 UTC
Sounds good, I have not dealt with this stuff for a while,  So you can close this bug.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.