netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/4] 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]

Message-ID: <5057688B.3030509@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:14:35 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	sds@...ho.nsa.gov, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
	eparis@...isplace.org, sri@...ibm.com, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/4] Take care of xfrm policy when checking
 dst entries

On 09/17/2012 12:49 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:09:43 +0200
>
>> The goal of these patches is to fix the following problem: a session is
>> established (TCP, SCTP) and after a new policy is inserted. The current
>> code does not recalculate the route, thus the traffic is not encrypted.
>>
>> The patch propose to check flow_cache_genid value when checking a dst
>> entry, which is incremented each time a policy is inserted or deleted.
>>
>> v2: use net->ipv4.rt_genid instead of flow_cache_genid (and thus save a test
>>      in fast path). Also move it to net->rt_genid, to be able to use it for IPv6
>>      too. Note that IPv6 will have one more test in fast path.
>>
>> v3: remove unrelated "#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM" in IPv6 part
>>      bump rt_genid in selinux code (same place than flow_cache_genid)
>>
>> Patches are tested with TCP and SCTP, IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> These patches don't apply cleanly at all.
>
> In the net/ipv4/route.c code we don't initialize the genid to zero,
> we stick a random value there.
>
> And we don't increment it by one on flushes, instead we increment
> it by a random amount.
>
> I wonder what tree these were even against, the differences were
> so great.
>

I think he expected you to take Eric's patch that removed those pieces.

-vlad
--
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