netdev - Re: [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev

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: <20100401062840.GA21284@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:28:40 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
Cc:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 09:20:40AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
>
> But my statement still holds. If iif/oif is swapped, it's changing
> current semantics and can end up breaking setups. Both are still
> valid for 'in' and 'fwd' policies too, right? What if I'm using
> 'in' policy to make sure that all stuff arriving via 'eth0' is
> encrypted, but 'eth1' is trusted and does not need xfrm. This
> would break.

The thing is if you're currently specifying an ifindex in the
selector for inbound/forward, it probably just won't work as
it'll be matched against oif which is meaningless on inbound
and forward.

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