linux-kernel - Re: [net-next,v2,4/5] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4 behavior

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:   Sat, 14 Nov 2020 00:00:24 +0100
From:   Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...roma2.it>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Lungaroni <paolo.lungaroni@...t.it>,
        Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>
Subject: Re: [net-next,v2,4/5] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4
 behavior

Hi Jakub,

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:40:10 -0800
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:40:36 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > agreed. The v6 variant has existed for a while. The v4 version is
> > > independent.  
> > 
> > Okay, I'm not sure what's the right call so I asked DaveM.
> 
> DaveM raised a concern that unless we implement v6 now we can't be sure
> the interface we create for v4 is going to fit there.
> 
> So Andrea unless it's a major hurdle, could you take a stab at the v6
> version with VRFs as part of this series?

I can tackle the v6 version but how do we face the compatibility issue raised
by Stefano in his message?

if it is ok to implement a uAPI that breaks the existing scripts, it is relatively
easy to replicate the VRF-based approach also in v6.

Waiting for your advice!

Thanks,
Andrea