netdev - Re: [PATCH net-2.6.22-rc7] xfrm beet interfamily support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:07:28 +0300
From:	Joakim Koskela <joakim.koskela@...t.fi>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.22-rc7] xfrm beet interfamily support

On Monday 06 August 2007 15:08:12 Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > It's been a while, but as a fyi in case there are comments / suggestions
> > before submitting the whole patch again - it seems that this had some
> > problems after all. Works ok for normal cases, but fails when using ip
> > options for the inner packet as they don't get processed after being
> > extracted from the pseudoheader. Calling something like
> > ip_options_compile from beet_mode's input when handling ipv4 would do the
> > trick, but seems a bit ugly & perhaps unsafe, I'd rather just put the
> > whole packet through the loop again.
>
> Won't the options get parsed by ip_rcv() on the second reception?

Yes. The thing was that it seemed like we could get by with only a 
transport-mode- amount of processing of same-family beet packets. But unless 
we do some special processing during beet reception (which doesn't seem that 
elegant), it won't work. So I'm changing it back to tunnel-like processing.

br, j
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html