netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3][XFRM]: Support packet processing error statistics.

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:	Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:18:46 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@...ux-ipv6.org>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3][XFRM]: Support packet processing error
	statistics.

On Wed, 2007-24-10 at 12:30 +0900, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote:

> At IPsec point of view, actually "SPI mismatch" caused by user configuration
> cannot be identified easily since identify of SAD is consist of SPI, address and
> protocol(ESP/AH...) and linux SAD uses hash database. It is database identify
> mismatch. Then, SPI mismatch goes "NoStates" at my patch.
> OTOH Key mismatch goes "ProtoError" since esp[46]_input returns error.

Would be useful to just document what you said above so that user doesnt
have to intepret it.

> Thanks for pointing the RFC. I've read it, however, I cannot find them at the RFC.

My bad. 

> > In any case, it seems to me to be more accurate to not call them MIB
> > stats if they are not. This doesnt qualify using the macros, utilities
> > etc used for MIBs.
> 

BTW, I meant "doesnt disqualify them" above;-> 

> How about assuming it as "private MIB" of linux?

Ok, makes sense to me now - that would be a good choice (i dont see any
confusion with enteprise mib). 

> Shouldn't we have something after XFRM_  to distinguish from other XFRM
> macros?
> 

It is not needed - I am sorry that i missed the "Linux MIB" part in your
emails so far. That would be good enough.

> > > > 2) Why /proc? Are you going to make these available also via netlink? 
> > > 
> > > Because /proc is easy to see it without any modified application.
> > > If you want the netlink interface, I can do it as the next step. Do you want it?
> > 
> > Absolutely - it would be much appreciated. And if you dont have time, I
> > will write and test the user space part extension.
> 
> Thanks. After my first step is completed, could you write the netlink part?

Thanks.

cheers,
jamal

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html