netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec v2] xfrm: Preserve xfrm interface secpath for packets forwarded

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, 19 Apr 2023 08:06:39 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Benedict Wong <benedictwong@...gle.com>
CC:     Martin Willi <martin@...ongswan.org>,
        Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v2] xfrm: Preserve xfrm interface secpath for
 packets forwarded

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 03:01:26PM -0700, Benedict Wong wrote:
> I believe I have a potential solution that caches the policy matches,
> rather than clearing the secpath, which should allow for repeated
> matches against a secpath entry, while allowing other already-matched
> secpath entries to not need to match nested policies. That should
> solve for the general case where the secpath gets checked against
> policies multiple times (both in the forwarding case, as well as in
> the nested transport mode in tunnel mode case.
> 
> Forgive my not knowing of convention; should I send that as a separate
> patch, or append it as a reply to this thread?

Send it as a separate patch.

Thanks!