netdev - Re: [PATCH] af_key: parse and send SADB_X_EXT_NAT_T

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]

Message-Id: <20090121.222112.245293949.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:21:12 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	timo.teras@....fi
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] af_key: parse and send SADB_X_EXT_NAT_T_OA extension

From: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:14:13 +0200

> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:56:57 +0200
> > 
> >> Is there any particular reason why setting NAT-OA info should/
> >> must be done using netlink? Or is this just a way to try to
> >> put more pressure for the change to happen?
> > 
> > Because it isn't deprecated if we keep adding features to it.
> 
> I would not consider this a new feature. It just makes pfkey
> act consistently. If you don't want it supported, it'd make
> more sense to not #define SADB_X_EXT_NAT_T_OA and drop all of
> the verification code already present than to silently
> ignore it. Make kernel return an error if some tried using it.

Fair enough, sounds like a reasonable argument.

Herbert what do you think?  The proposal is that we just reflect the
value we get, rather than acting upon it.
--
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