netdev - Re: [IPSEC] confused about IPSEC_MANUAL_REQID

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:	Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:22:10 +0200
From:	"Zsolt SZALAI" <zs.szalai@...il.com>
To:	"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [IPSEC] confused about IPSEC_MANUAL_REQID_MAX

Thanks,

I would like to switch, but it would require much time to port our
code, that we don't have now.
I hope af_key wont be deleted from the kernel tree in the near future,
and then we will have time to migrate.

BR,
Szalai Zsolt



On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Zsolt SZALAI <zs.szalai@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> As XFRM allows, is it safe to increase this value or even bypass the
>> checking of the reqid beeing higher than that?
>
> Please stop using the af_key interface.  The part dealing with
> policies (which is the only place where reqids are generated) is
> just as unportable as xfrm.
>
> In any case changing an interface should be avoided unless there
> is a really good reason.  In this case I don't see any good reasons
> since you can instead switch to xfrm.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
> Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
>
--
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