netdev - Re: [PATCH] Add sk_mark route lookup support for IPv4 listening sockets, and for IPv4 multicast forwarding

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:	Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:03:30 -0700
From:	Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	atis@...rotik.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, panther@...abit.hu,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, brian.haley@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add sk_mark route lookup support for IPv4 listening 
	sockets, and for IPv4 multicast forwarding

Should wrapping a packet into a tunnel clear the mark?
Should perhaps the mark be a parameter of the tunnel (like ttl or qos,
can be set or can be inherited)?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 13:56, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Atis Elsts <atis@...rotik.com>
> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:59:56 +0300
>
>> Here is the sk_mark part.
>
> Applied, thanks.
>
>> As for the ipmr.c code, I agree with your comment. Using mark from
>> skb probably is wrong in case of tunnel interface (i.e. in the "if
>> (vif->flags&VIFF_TUNNEL)" part of the patch), my mistake. I still
>> think that the "else" part is correct, though, because using mark
>> from skb there mirrors behaviour for unicast forwarding routing
>> lookup in ip_route_input_slow(). The same applies to IPv6 code in
>> ip6mr_forward2().
>
> Ok submit just the else part and we'll have a look at it.
>
> Thanks.
>
--
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