netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Take care of xfrm policy when checking dst entries

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:	Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:01:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	vyasevich@...il.com
Cc:	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, sri@...ibm.com,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Take care of xfrm policy when checking dst
 entries

From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:59:22 -0400

> On 09/10/2012 01:18 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
>> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:35:03 -0400
>>
>>> I am not sure this is right...  This has a side-effect that when an
>>> rt_cache_flush() is called, it invalidates IPv6 routes a well....
>>>
>>> Its all fine and good do this when a new policy is added, but not when
>>> IPv4 routing table changes.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
> 
> So you are perfectly ok with invalidating IPv6 cache when IPv4 table
> changes, but not invalidating IPv4 cache if IPv6 table changes?

Due to tunneling I can't see how this is avoidable?

We do ipv6 over ipv4, but not vice-versa.
--
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