netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] {ipv4,xfrm}: Introduce xfrm_tunnel

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]

Date:	Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:21:35 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	fan.du@...driver.com
Cc:	steffen.klassert@...unet.com, saurabh.mohan@...tta.com,
	herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] {ipv4,xfrm}: Introduce xfrm_tunnel_notifier
 for xfrm tunnel mode callback

From: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:47:04 +0800

> Some thoughts on IPv4 VTI implementation:
> 
> The connection between VTI receiving part and xfrm tunnel mode input process
> is hardly a "xfrm_tunnel", xfrm_tunnel is used in places where, e.g ipip/sit
> and xfrm4_tunnel, acts like a true "tunnel" device.
> 
> In addition, IMHO, VTI doesn't need vti_err to do something meaningful, as all
> VTI needs is just a notifier to be called whenever xfrm_input ingress a packet
> to update statistics.
> 
> So this patch introduce xfrm_tunnel_notifier and meanwhile wipe out vti_erri
> code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>

I don't understand why VTI doesn't need to propagate a PMTU update via
ipv4_update_pmtu().  Why is it different from a real xfrm_tunnel?

Your changelog has to explain this better and in more detail.

Thanks.
--
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