linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

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, 11 Feb 2013 13:57:59 +0100
From:	Romain KUNTZ <r.kuntz@...lavors.com>
To:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:	jamal <j.hadi123@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	Emmanuel THIERRY <emmanuel.thierry@...ecom-bretagne.eu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...erus.ca>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

Hi Steffen,

Do you plan to resubmit a patch to the mailing list or shall we take care of that?

Thank you,
Romain

On Feb 8, 2013, at 15:16 , Emmanuel Thierry <emmanuel.thierry@...ecom-bretagne.eu> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Le 7 févr. 2013 à 13:54, Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> a écrit :
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> Ok, actually i understand the concern of backward compatibility you expose. It is true that users might be disturbed if we change such a behavior they would rely on.
> Anyway, i'm ok with your patch.
> 
> Best regards
> Emmanuel Thierry

-- 
Romain KUNTZ
IP flavors | http://www.ipflavors.com
+33 (0)6 61 29 50 52
r.kuntz@...lavors.com



--
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/