[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18235a42-72ad-8471-c940-c70b476cf0e0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 22:11:08 +0300
From: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@...sta.com>,
Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@...le.com>,
Ivan Delalande <colona@...sta.com>,
Priyaranjan Jha <priyarjha@...gle.com>,
Menglong Dong <dong.menglong@....com.cn>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 1/9] tcp: authopt: Initial support and key management
On 11.08.2021 16:42, David Ahern wrote:
> On 8/11/21 2:29 AM, Leonard Crestez wrote:
>> On 8/10/21 11:41 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 02:50, Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>> +/* Representation of a Master Key Tuple as per RFC5925 */
>>>> +struct tcp_authopt_key_info {
>>>> + struct hlist_node node;
>>>> + /* Local identifier */
>>>> + u32 local_id;
>>>
>>> There is no local_id in RFC5925, what's that?
>>> An MKT is identified by (send_id, recv_id), together with
>>> (src_addr/src_port, dst_addr/dst_port).
>>> Why introducing something new to already complicated RFC?
>>
>> It was there to simplify user interface and initial implementation.
>>
>> But it seems that BGP listeners already needs to support multiple
>> keychains for different peers so identifying the key by (send_id,
>> recv_id, binding) is easier for userspace to work with. Otherwise they
>> need to create their own local_id mapping internally.
>>
>
> any proposed simplification needs to be well explained and how it
> relates to the RFC spec.
The local_id only exists between userspace and kernel so it's not really
covered by the RFC.
There are objections to this and it seems to be unhelpful for userspace
zo I will replace it with match by binding.
BTW: another somewhat dubious simplification is that I offloaded the RFC
requirement to never add overlapping keys to userspace. So if userspace
adds keys with same recvid that match the same TCP 4-tuple then
connections will just start failing.
It's arguably fine to allow userspace misconfiguration to cause failures.
--
Regards,
Leonard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists