Skip to main content

Migrating from iptables to nftables

nftables has been enabled by default in latest Ubuntu and Debian, but not fully supported by Docker.

I've been hestitating about migrating from iptables to nftables, but managed to do it today.

Here are my thoughts.

Scripting nftables

The syntax of iptables and nftables are different, but not that different, both are more or less human readable. However, nftables is clearly more friendly for scripting.

I spent quite some time in a python script to generate a iptables rule set, and I was worried that I need lots of time migrating the script. Aftering studying the syntax of nftables, I realized that I could just write /etc/nftables.conf directly. 

In the conf file I can manage tables and chains in a structured way. I'm free to use indentations and new lines, and I no longer need to write "-I CHAIN" for every rule.

Besides, I can group similar rules (e.g. same rule for different tcp ports) easily, and I can define variables and reuse them. 

Eventually I was able to write a nice nftables rule set quickly with basic scripting syntax. It was not as powerful as my custom python script, but it is definitely easier to write. Further, I think it might be worth learning mapping in the future.

Tables & Chains in nftables

Unlike iptables, nftables is decentralized. Instead of pre-defined tables (e.g. filter) and chains (e.g. INPUT), nftables uses hooks and priorities. It sounds like event listeners in JavaScript.

One big difference is: a packet is dropped if it is dropped any matching rule, and a packet is accepted only if all relevant chains accept the packet. Again, this is similar to event listeners. On the other hand, in iptables, a packet is accepted if it is accepted by any rule. It sounds a bit confusing at the beginning, but I think nftables is more flexible, especially in my cases, see below.

Docker & nftables

Docker does not support nftables, but it add rules via iptables-nft. It was painful to managed iptables rules with Docker:
  • Docker creates its own DOCKER and DOCKER-USER chains, which may accept some rules.
  • If I need to control the traffic from/to containers, I need to make sure that the rules are defined before or in DOCKER-USER.
  • Docker may or may not be started at boot. And Docker adds DOCKER to INPUT, so I need to make sure that my rules are in effect in all cases.
Well all the mess is because: in iptables, a packet is accepted if it is accepted by any rule. That means I must insert my REJECT rules before DOCKER/DOCKER-UESR, which might accept the packet.

This is no longer an issue in nftables! I can simply define my own tables and reject some packets as I like.

Finally, I don't need to touch the tables created by Docker via iptables-nft, instead I can create my own nft tables.

Conclusions

I had lots of worries about nftables, about scripting and working with Docker. As it turned out, none was actually an issue thanks to the new design of nftables!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Rocky Migration: Moving from docker-compose to Podman and gVisor

I've been running a few containers for several years. They were all running under rootless Docker with a single user. Initially, I planned to  migrate the containers to VMs , but I couldn't get a stable workflow after about two months of effort. Later,  gVisor caught my attention , and I decided to migrate to Podman with gVisor instead. The new plan is to run each container with  --userns=auto  and use Quadlet for systemd integration. This approach provides better isolation and makes writing firewall rules easier. I'm now close to migrating all my containers. Here are a couple of rough edges I'd like to share. Network Layout I compared  various networking options  and spent a few hours trying the one-interface-per-group approach before giving up. I settled on a single macvlan network and decided to use static IP addresses for my containers. To prevent a randomly assigned IP address from conflicting with a predefined one, I allocated a large IP range for my ...

GameConqueror 0.09 -- Linux Game Hacking Tool

If you are a game hacker If you've been looking for a `CheatEngine for Linux` Then you can't miss this. ============================================== GameConqueror is a game hacking tool for linux, it's written in PyGTK and uses scanmem as its backend. It's supposed to be with most useful features of CheatEngine for Linux. Currently, I've implemented almost everything about scanning, involving variant data types and scan types: Data Types: int{8/16/32/64}, float{32/64}, unknown type(int or float) and unknown width(will try each of them), byte array and string Scan Types: equal, greater, less, changed, unchanged, increased(by), decreased(by) This should be enough for most cases, so I decided to release it at the current status. ============================================= Here's how you can get it PPA (for Ubuntu users) https://launchpad.net/~coolwanglu/+archive/scanmem (I've not test it in 32bit environments or Jaunty, do please inform me if it doe...

Fix Google Security Code

Google Security Code (http://g.co/sc) is one type of 2-step verification. This is particularly useful when security keys and passkeys are not available. I have been using it in my LXC containers, until today I found out that it stopped working. It just kept saying "The code is invalid". It is easy to rule out some factors: The code works on other browsers on my laptop. The code works on other devices that are directly connected to the router. So it appears that Google also checks IP addresses besides the security code. Recently I have IPv6 enabled, so most devices that are directly connected to the router have both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. But  I only enabled IPv4 for my LXC containers. So I guess when a code is generated by device A and used by device B, Google should be able to check that device A and device B are closely located. But in my case, IPv6 address appears on device A but not on device B, which may look suspicious. To fix the problem, I just needed to disable IPv...