Here’s the setup:

  • Fedora 41 Server host
  • Libvirt/QEMU
  • Alma 9 guest running ssh

My goal is to forward ports from the guest to the host, but change them. I set up a hook(as in the libvirt docs) and it worked on my last server. My hook looks like:

#!/bin/bash

if [ "${1}" = "Jellyfin" ]; then

   # Update the following variables to fit your setup
   GUEST_IP=192.168.101.4
   GUEST_PORT=22
   HOST_PORT=2222

   if [ "${2}" = "stopped" ] || [ "${2}" = "reconnect" ]; then
    /sbin/iptables -D FORWARD -o virbr1 -p tcp -d $GUEST_IP --dport $GUEST_PORT -j ACCEPT
    /sbin/iptables -t nat -D PREROUTING -p tcp --dport $HOST_PORT -j DNAT --to $GUEST_IP:$GUEST_PORT
   fi
   if [ "${2}" = "start" ] || [ "${2}" = "reconnect" ]; then
    /sbin/iptables -I FORWARD -o virbr1 -p tcp -d $GUEST_IP --dport $GUEST_PORT -j ACCEPT
    /sbin/iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport $HOST_PORT -j DNAT --to $GUEST_IP:$GUEST_PORT
   fi
fi

However, when I ssh to my server:2222, it doesn’t work, “Connection refused.” I can ssh from inside my server to my guest’s ip address, so I know it’s not an issue with ssh itself. The guest’s iptables rules are:

-P INPUT ACCEPT
-P FORWARD ACCEPT
-P OUTPUT ACCEPT

so that’s probably not the issue.

My server’s iptables rules include:

-A FORWARD -d 192.168.101.4/32 -o virbr1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT

, so it appears the forwarding happened, but an nmap scan reveals the port is closed:

2222/tcp closed EtherNetIP-1

I’m baffled by this issue. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  • AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    For general awareness, not all flags can match all parts of an iptables command; the part you included there with “–to offset” is only valid with the string module, and not the DNAT action. That said after playing around with it a little, iptables actually does short flag matching, so ‘DNAT --to 1.2.3.4’ ‘DNAT --to-d 1.2.3.4’ and ‘DNAT --to-destination’ are all equivalent, so not the source of your issue.

    I am having trouble following the IP scheme, though. Is your Alma guest 192.168.101.4, or is that the host IP? If it’s Alma’s and you are attempting to ssh from that IP to the host with that iptables rule, what should happen is that DNAT would then redirect that connection back to Alma. If the guest doesn’t have a :22 listener, you’d get a connection refused from itself.

    • potentiallynotfelixOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      192.168.101.4 is the alma guest. It’s got port 22 open and I can ssh into it from the host computer.

      iptables -nvL on Alma returns:

      Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
       pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
      
      Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
       pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
      
      Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
       pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
      

      I believe this means it automatically accepts connections.

      IMO this makes it unlikely that the guest is the issue.

      • AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Sorry, I was looking more specifically at that DNAT rule

        8   480 DNAT       6    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:2222 to:192.168.101.4:22
        

        That rule exists in the host 192.168.86.73, correct? And from the guest, 192.168.101.4 you are attempting to ssh into 192.168.86.73:2222?

        It might not be your issue (or only issue), but that DNAT rule says that if a connection comes in on port 2222, instead send it to 192.168.101.4:22. So 192.168.101.4->192.168.86.73:2222->192.168.101.4:22. I would have thought you’d want it to be a DNAT to 192.168.86.73, functionally doing port bending, so it goes 192.168.101.4->192.168.86.73:2222->192.168.86.73:22.

        That doesn’t explain the connection refused, though, based on what you’ve said; there’s some fringe possibilities, but I wouldn’t expect for your setup if you hadn’t said (like your ~/.ssh/ssh_config defining an alternate ssh port for your guest OS than 22). It’s somewhat annoying, but it might be worthwhile to do a packet capture on both ends and follow exactly where the packet is going. So a

        tcpdump -v -Nnn tcp port 22 or tcp port 2222

        • potentiallynotfelixOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          yes, the host is 192.168.86.73 and it has that dnat rule.

          And from the guest

          Assuming you meant from the host, I am sshing directly to 192.168.101.4 instead of to 192.168.86.73:2222.

          The third paragraph doesn’t make sense to me. I am using port 22 on my host(192.168.86.73) for it’s own ssh.

          tcpdump returns this when I ssh to port 2222:

          20:32:29.957942 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 64, id 28091, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP (6), length 60)
              192.168.86.23.53434 > 192.168.86.73.2222: Flags [S], cksum 0x5d75 (correct), seq 1900319834, win 64240, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 3627223725 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0