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:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:55:47 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...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,
        Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...roma2.it>,
        Paolo Lungaroni <paolo.lungaroni@...t.it>,
        Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next,v2,4/5] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4
 behavior

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:49:17 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/12/20 6:28 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote:
> > The implementation of SRv6 End.DT4 differs from the the implementation of SRv6
> > End.DT6 due to the different *route input* lookup functions. For IPv6 is it
> > possible to force the routing lookup specifying a routing table through the
> > ip6_pol_route() function (as it is done in the seg6_lookup_any_nexthop()).  
> 
> It is unfortunate that the IPv6 variant got in without the VRF piece.

Should we make it a requirement for this series to also extend the v6
version to support the preferred VRF-based operation? Given VRF is
better and we require v4 features to be implemented for v6?