From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
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 C46E891313
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  3 Apr 2024 14:25:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A65581783D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  3 Apr 2024 14:25:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  3 Apr 2024 14:25:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CF4CE44D7C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  3 Apr 2024 14:25:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <94141915-bcfe-4fe5-b3f5-b17e19f95762@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:25:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20240402171629.536804-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <mailman.56.1712124362.450.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
 <0e92f09d-6bd4-49f3-ac68-1845f33d1a6c@proxmox.com>
 <mailman.77.1712145853.450.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.77.1712145853.450.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.586 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC
 container/firewall/manager/proxmox-firewall/qemu-server 00/37] proxmox
 firewall nftables implementation
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 12:25:42 -0000

On 4/3/24 14:03, DERUMIER, Alexandre via pve-devel wrote:
> maybe revert the kernel patch ? ^_^
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/net/bridge/netfilter/nft_reject_bridge.c?h=v6.8.2&id=127917c29a432c3b798e014a1714e9c1af0f87fe

I also thought about it shortly. If we can ensure that certain
conditions are met that might be an option. We would have to think about
broadcast/multicast traffic like ARP / DHCP I would assume. It seems a
bit drastic from my POV, which is why dropped that thought.

> Or Improve it for upstream, something like:
> 
> if !bridge_unicast_flooding && !bridge_mac_learning && proto = tcp|udp
>     allow_use_of_reject

that might be a possibility, although I'm not sure that information
about the bridge is available in the netfilter modules.