From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C885368C22 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:35:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B702C15335 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:34:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from office.oderland.com (office.oderland.com [91.201.60.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E9AA315327 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:34:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [193.180.18.161] (port=51564 helo=[10.137.0.14]) by office.oderland.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mOfk7-009uiH-J6 for pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:34:55 +0200 Message-ID: <00e62956-348c-8c71-bca3-ed1c6f3ea7dd@oderland.se> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:34:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/92.0 Content-Language: en-US From: Josef Johansson To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <7686571e-ebf0-8ad5-8bc3-af484fd2ac88@oderland.se> In-Reply-To: <7686571e-ebf0-8ad5-8bc3-af484fd2ac88@oderland.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - office.oderland.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.proxmox.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - oderland.se X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: office.oderland.com: authenticated_id: josjoh@oderland.se X-Authenticated-Sender: office.oderland.com: josjoh@oderland.se X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.113 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH 0.837 Header says 7bits but body disagrees KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.975 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] hetzner bug with pve-firewall X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:35:26 -0000 Traffic is only broadcasted to MAC B if the ARP-table in the switch times out. Which makes this problem a hell to diagnose :-) On 9/10/21 12:53, Josef Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > I've stumpled upon this problem a couple of times and it resulted in me > add ebtables rules. It is a very annoying problem to be fair. In our > case what happen is > > * traffic is sent to MAC A because traffic flows towards IP A > > * traffic is broadcasted to MAC B and MAC A > > * MAC B responds with RST > > * upstream switch learns that IP A is at MAC B > > > We are doing some benchmark testing with it to ensure that performance > will not regress also, not done with that. > > > Another more lean solution would be do to DROP instead of REJECT, which > would solve it. > > > I have a patch for the source code regarding only allowing the VMs MAC > in ebtables for incoming traffic also. > > > On 9/10/21 12:31, alexandre derumier wrote: >> Hi, >> >> multiple users have reported problems with hetzner in bridged mode this >> week and pve-firewall >> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-claiming-mac-address.52601/ >> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/mac-address-abuse-report.95656/ >> >> Seem that hetzner have bugs or are under attack, but they are flooding >> traffic to proxmox nodes with wrong mac/ip destination. >> >> The problem is that if users use pve-firewall with reject rules, the >> RST packet is send with the wrong mac/ip as source, >> >> and then hertzner is blocking the server of the users .... >> >> >> I'm looking to see if we could add filtering at ebtables level, to drop >> wrong mac destination. >> >> But they are also another problem, if user use DROP as default action, >>  we have a default REJECT for whois port 53. >> >> 'PVEFW-Drop' => [ >>    # same as shorewall 'Drop', which is equal to DROP, >>    # but REJECT/DROP some packages to reduce logging, >>    # and ACCEPT critical ICMP types >>    { action => 'PVEFW-reject', proto => 'tcp', dport => '43' }, # >> REJECT 'auth' >> >> Does somebody known why we do a reject here ?  could it be change to >> drop ? >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pve-devel mailing list >> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com >> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel -- Med vänliga hälsningar Josef Johansson