netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec v2 1/3] ipv6: wire up skb->encapsulation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130820003651.GA3938@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:36:51 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v2 1/3] ipv6: wire up skb->encapsulation

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:35:46AM +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 01:46:52PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > When pushing a new header before current one call skb_reset_inner_headers
> > to record the position of the inner headers in the various ipv6 tunnel
> > protocols.
> > 
> > We later need this to correctly identify the addresses needed to send
> > back an error in the xfrm layer.
> > 
> > This change is safe, because skb->protocol is always checked before
> > dereferencing data from the inner protocol.
> 
> It seems that the intention is to only track the inner-most header
> due to the presence of if (likely(!skb->encapsulation)). Is this the
> intention?

Ack. Do you see problems with this?

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
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