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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:54:37 +0100 From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> To: Emmanuel Thierry <emmanuel.thierry@...ecom-bretagne.eu> Cc: jamal <j.hadi123@...il.com>, Romain KUNTZ <r.kuntz@...lavors.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...erus.ca> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask. On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Emmanuel Thierry wrote: > > This is a nice idea, however you keep the insertion asymmetric. The usage of xfrm marks in non-conflicting cases will be made possible, but it stays disturbing for a user as the initial example will still have the same behavior: > * Inserting the marked one then the unmarked will succeed > * Inserting the unmarked then the marked one will fail > This gives to the user the feeling of an indeterministic behavior of the xfrm module. This was intended. Inserting the marked one then the unmarked is a working scenario. Some users might rely on it, so we can't change this as you proposed. On the other hand, inserting the unmarked one then the marked might result in a wrong policy lookup, so we can't allow this. The only possibility we have, is inserting with different priorites and that's what I'm proposing. I fear we have to live with that asymmetric behaviour if both policies have the same priority. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists