[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd2ca85e-ab29-2973-f129-9afafb405851@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 11:29:50 +0300
From: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc: Philip Paeps <philip@...uble.is>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>,
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>,
Caowangbao <caowangbao@...wei.com>,
Priyaranjan Jha <priyarjha@...gle.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 21/26] selftests: net/fcnal: Initial tcp_authopt
support
On 7/26/22 10:27, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:06 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:16 AM Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tests are mostly copied from tcp_md5 with minor changes.
>>>
>>> It covers VRF support but only based on binding multiple servers: not
>>> multiple keys bound to different interfaces.
>>>
>>> Also add a specific -t tcp_authopt to run only these tests specifically.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the test.
>>
>> Could you amend the existing TCP MD5 test to make sure dual sockets
>> mode is working ?
>>
>> Apparently, if we have a dual stack listener socket (AF_INET6),
>> correct incoming IPV4 SYNs are dropped.
>> If this is the case, fixing MD5 should happen first ;
I remember looking into this and my conclusion was that ipv4-mapped-ipv6
is not worth supporting for AO, at least not in the initial version.
Instead I just wrote a test to check that ipv4-mapped-ipv6 fails for AO:
https://github.com/cdleonard/tcp-authopt-test/blob/main/tcp_authopt_test/test_verify_capture.py#L191
On a closer look it does appear that support existed for
ipv4-mapped-ipv6 in TCP-MD5 but my test didn't actually exercise it
correctly so the test had to be fixed.
Do you think it makes sense to add support for ipv4-mapped-ipv6 for AO?
It's not particularly difficult to test, it was skipped due to a lack of
application use case and to keep the initial series smaller.
Adding support for this later as a separate commit should be fine. Since
ivp4-mapped-ipv6 addresses shouldn't appear on the wire giving them
special treatment "later" should raise no compatibility concerns.
>> I think that we are very late in the cycle (linux-5.19 should be
>> released in 5 days), and your patch set should not be merged so late.
This was posted in order to get code reviews, I'm not actually expecting
inclusion.
--
Regards,
Leonard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists