netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: do xfrm transform after nat if necessary

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:14:15 +0800
From:	Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: do xfrm transform after nat if necessary

On 11/04/2014 03:42 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:53:03 +0800
> 
>>
>>
>> In function nf_nat_ipv6_out, after nat is done, nf_xfrm_me_harder()
>> will be called to look up xfrm dst.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> 
> This is far from sufficient of a commit log message for a change that
> is as serious and has as many implications as this one.
> 
> You haven't answered many questions, first of which in my mind is
> why we are bypassing all of the fragmentation checks?
> 
> We're also bypassing ip6_finish_output2() which does multicast and
> hooks up the neighbour.
> 
> IPV4 doesn't do this, why doesn't it have the same supposed problem
> you are trying to solve?
> 
> It is not even clear to me what the problem is, because your commit
> message is way too terse.
> 
Thank you for your advice, I would consider a more comprehensive 
of the problem.

Thanks,
  Duan

--
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