PGSQL x iptables - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Slansky Lukas
Subject PGSQL x iptables
Date
Msg-id 7F27BA389269BB47A79525510325A35F6F923A@se02.upce.cz
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: PGSQL x iptables  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
Re: PGSQL x iptables  (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>)
List pgsql-general

Hello,

we’re using PG and Application Server (JBoss) on separate CentOS servers with Cisco PIX in between. On DB side is iptable with following relevant rules:

 

1. -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

2. -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -s aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd --dport 5432 -j ACCEPT

3. -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited

 

I was wondering when these rules are not OK for our environment. It seems that rules 1 and 2 sometimes pass packets and therefore these packets are rejected. Such connection is then in some weird state, doesn’t communicate (obviously – packets are dropped) and psql (or JBoss) connection is blocking for a long time (at least few hours).

 

Everything seems to be OK when I have changed rule 2 to  “-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp -s aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd --dport 5432 -j ACCEPT“.

 

I’m really confused – what other states are possible for iptables except ESTABLISHED, RELATED or NEW? In iptables manpage is only INVALID, but why is this state emerging?

 

Any idea?

 

Lukas

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: bizgres
Next
From: John R Pierce
Date:
Subject: Re: PGSQL x iptables