linux-kernel - IPSec questions and comments

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:01:17 -0500
From:   Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: IPSec questions and comments

<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Bcc: 
Subject: IPSec questions
Reply-To: minyard@....org

I've been going through the XFRM code trying to understand it.  I've
been documenting things in the code as I go.

I have a specific usage question, then a general question:

1) In struct xfrm_dst, what is the difference between the route and path
fields?  From what I can tell, in the first element of a bundle they
will both point the route the packet will take after it has been
transformed.  In the other elements of a bundle, route is the same as in
the first element and path will be NULL.  Is this really the intent?
Can path just be eliminated?

2) This code is really hard to understand.  Nobody should have to go
through what I'm going through.  If I can convince my employer to allow
me to submit the comments I'm adding, would that be something acceptable?
It would obviously take a lot of time to review.  If nobody's going to
have the time to review it, I don't need to put forth the extra effort
to make it submittable.

Thanks,

-corey