netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family

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, 12 Aug 2013 07:54:14 +0200
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	vi0oss@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets
 if we don't cross address family

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 06:16:29PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> 
> Seems skb->encapsulated helps, but I still have to wire it up for the ipv6
> tunnels.
> 
> I just prototyped this patch, but I fear I now introduced a dependency
> from core xfrm to ipv6, which I would like to have prevented (this would
> even happen if I put xfrm_local_error in a header file). Is this actually
> a problem? I fear so. The other way would be to put the local_error
> handler as function pointers somewhere reachable from struct sock.
> 

Maybe we should put a local_error() function pointer to struct
xfrm_state_afinfo and call it via inner_mode->afinfo->local_error().

This should always call the right local_error function and we
would not need to touch generic networking code to fix it.
--
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