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]

Date:	Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:00:46 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"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, 2010-04-01 at 14:47 +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:

> 
> The thing is that currently FWD 'dev blah' matches the interface
> to which the packet is being forwarded to. Someone might be using
> this feature already.

So this is the part i am missing i think. If i look at:

int ip_forward(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
.....
        if (!xfrm4_policy_check(NULL, XFRM_POLICY_FWD, skb))
                goto drop;
....
........later forwarding happens here ...
        if (!xfrm4_route_forward(skb))
                goto drop;
...
}

On entry we have a legit skb->skb_iif.
The validity check is before forwarding decision (where the interface
the packet is being forwarded to is recognized).

> Your patch changes semantics on how FWD policies are matched.

I agree if what you say earlier is true.

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