Re: Connecting back to the host through a dummy veth interface

Re: Connecting back to the host through a dummy veth interface

[Stefano Brivio]

Hi Felix,

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:32:36 +0100
Felix Rubio <felix@kngnt.org> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> 
> I am trying to run a number of rootless podman pods and containers by different 
> users, while still being able to talk to each other. To this end I am creating 
> a dummy veth interface and publishing all the exposed ports there (this works: 
> I can communicate from other host services with those containers), and I am 
> also trying to set that dummy veth interface as the default gateway for the 
> pods/containers (with the expectation that then they will be able to reach 
> each other). However, this is not working... and I am pretty lost.
> 
> For example, I am running the following command, trying to connect a ldap 
> client container to a ldap server container, unsuccessfully.
> 
> podman run --rm --dns=10.255.255.1 --network=pasta:--outbound-
> if4=cluster_dns0,--gateway=10.255.255.1 --add-host=ldap.host.internal:host-gateway sh -c "ip add && ip route && ldapwhoami -H ldaps://
> ldap.host.internal:1636"
> 
> Is this something impossible to do, or am I doing something wrong?

Sorry, I'm a bit swamped at the moment, and I plan to get back to you
in a bit, but meanwhile, I think the dummy veth trick is unnecessarily
complicated.

I think you could simply connect "to the host" and redirect from there
to the containers by means of mapped ports. See:

  https://blog.podman.io/2024/10/podman-5-3-changes-for-improved-networking-experience-with-pasta/

for a couple of details. But I'll try to come up with a full example
next.

-- 
Stefano

Re: Connecting back to the host through a dummy veth interface

[Felix Rubio]

Hey Stefano,

Thank you for your answer! I know I can run rootful containers, and that then 
I can access the host's network ns. However, this exposes a number of 
potential issues:
* In case the an attacker manages to break out of the container, gets root
* That enables connecting back to the host loopback, but then from that 
container any service listening to the loopback can be reached as well.

The reason for looking for a way of binding those services to 10.255.255.1 (so 
that only exposed services will be in that interface) and running fully 
rootless, if works, provides a more secure system... in general.

About the mapped ports, I am a bit lost: for what I have tested, running 
rootless disables the possibility to connect back to the host, right?

Regards, and thank you!
Felix

On Saturday, 20 December 2025 15:12:24 Central European Standard Time Stefano 
Brivio wrote:
> Hi Felix,
> 
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:32:36 +0100
> 
> Felix Rubio <felix@kngnt.org> wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> > 
> > I am trying to run a number of rootless podman pods and containers by 
different
> > users, while still being able to talk to each other. To this end I am 
creating
> > a dummy veth interface and publishing all the exposed ports there (this 
works:
> > I can communicate from other host services with those containers), and I 
am
> > also trying to set that dummy veth interface as the default gateway for 
the
> > pods/containers (with the expectation that then they will be able to reach
> > each other). However, this is not working... and I am pretty lost.
> > 
> > For example, I am running the following command, trying to connect a ldap
> > client container to a ldap server container, unsuccessfully.
> > 
> > podman run --rm --dns=10.255.255.1 --network=pasta:--outbound-
> > if4=cluster_dns0,--gateway=10.255.255.1 --add-
host=ldap.host.internal:host-gateway sh -c "ip add && ip route &&
> > ldapwhoami -H ldaps:// ldap.host.internal:1636"
> > 
> > Is this something impossible to do, or am I doing something wrong?
> 
> Sorry, I'm a bit swamped at the moment, and I plan to get back to you
> in a bit, but meanwhile, I think the dummy veth trick is unnecessarily
> complicated.
> 
> I think you could simply connect "to the host" and redirect from there
> to the containers by means of mapped ports. See:
> 
>   https://blog.podman.io/2024/10/podman-5-3-changes-for-improved-networking-experience-with-pasta/
> 
> for a couple of details. But I'll try to come up with a full example
> next.


-- 
Felix Rubio

Re: Connecting back to the host through a dummy veth interface

[Stefano Brivio]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2025 15:28:43 +0100
Felix Rubio <felix@kngnt.org> wrote:

> Hey Stefano,
> 
> Thank you for your answer! I know I can run rootful containers, and that then 
> I can access the host's network ns. However, this exposes a number of 
> potential issues:
> * In case the an attacker manages to break out of the container, gets root
> * That enables connecting back to the host loopback, but then from that 
> container any service listening to the loopback can be reached as well.

Sure. That's the whole point behind pasta(1) and rootless containers
with Podman / rootlesskit. I certainly won't be the one suggesting that
you'd run anything as root. :)

> The reason for looking for a way of binding those services to 10.255.255.1 (so 
> that only exposed services will be in that interface) and running fully 
> rootless, if works, provides a more secure system... in general.

Indeed.

> About the mapped ports, I am a bit lost: for what I have tested, running 
> rootless disables the possibility to connect back to the host, right?

Hah, I see now. No, that's not the case. You can run rootless
containers and connect to the host from them, in two ways:

1. disabled by default in Podman's pasta integration, not what you want:
   via the loopback interface, see -U / -T in 'man pasta' and
   --host-lo-to-ns-lo for the other way around.

   In that case, packets appear to be local (source address is
   loopback) in the other namespace ("host" or initial namespace for
   packets from a container, and container for packets from host).

   This gives you better throughput but making connections appear as if
   they were local is risky (cf. CVE-2021-20199), so it's disabled by
   default, and not what I'm suggesting (at least in general)

2. what you get as default in Podman: using pasta's --map-guest-addr.

   The current description of this option in pasta(1) isn't great, hence
   https://bugs.passt.top/show_bug.cgi?id=132, but the idea is that you
   will reach the host from the container with a non-loopback address,
   as if the connection was coming from another host (which should
   represent the expected container usage).

So here's an example:

$ podman run --rm -ti -p 8089:80 traefik/whoami
2025/12/21 10:42:16 Starting up on port 80

[in another terminal]
$ podman run --rm -ti fedora curl host.containers.internal:8089
Hostname: ab94f49b5042
IP: 127.0.0.1
IP: ::1
IP: **.***.*.***
IP: ****:***:***:***::*
IP: ****::****:****:****:****
RemoteAddr: 169.254.1.2:46592
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: host.containers.internal:8089
User-Agent: curl/8.15.0
Accept: */*

...doesn't that work for you? Note that you'll need somewhat recent
versions of pasta (>= 2024_08_21.1d6142f) and Podman (>= 5.3).

-- 
Stefano

Connecting back to the host through a dummy veth interface

[Felix Rubio]

Hi everybody,

I am trying to run a number of rootless podman pods and containers by different 
users, while still being able to talk to each other. To this end I am creating 
a dummy veth interface and publishing all the exposed ports there (this works: 
I can communicate from other host services with those containers), and I am 
also trying to set that dummy veth interface as the default gateway for the 
pods/containers (with the expectation that then they will be able to reach 
each other). However, this is not working... and I am pretty lost.

For example, I am running the following command, trying to connect a ldap 
client container to a ldap server container, unsuccessfully.

podman run --rm --dns=10.255.255.1 --network=pasta:--outbound-
if4=cluster_dns0,--gateway=10.255.255.1 --add-host=ldap.host.internal:host-gateway sh -c "ip add && ip route && ldapwhoami -H ldaps://
ldap.host.internal:1636"

Is this something impossible to do, or am I doing something wrong?

Thank you very much for any help you can provide!

-- 
Felix
Felix Rubio