netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <522057FB.2010306@windriver.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:29:47 +0800
From:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
To:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
CC:	<herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] {ipv4,xfrm}: Introduce xfrm_tunnel_notifier
 for xfrm tunnel mode callback



On 2013年08月30日 15:38, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 03:09:40PM +0800, Fan Du wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> A IPsec protected packet is first handled by protocol handlers, e.g AH/ESP,
>> to check packet authentication or encryption rightness. PMTU update is taken
>> care of in this stage by protocol error handler.
>>
>> Then the packet is rearranged properly depending on whether it's transport
>> mode or tunnel mode packed by mode "input" handler. The VTI handler code
>> takes effects in this stage in tunnel mode only. So it neither need propagate
>> PMTU, as it has already been done if necessary, nor the VTI handler is
>> qualified as a xfrm_tunnel.
>>
>> So this patch introduces xfrm_tunnel_notifier and meanwhile wipe out vti_err
>> code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fan Du<fan.du@...driver.com>
>> Cc: Steffen Klassert<steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
>> Cc: David S. Miller<davem@...emloft.net>
>> Reviewed-by: Saurabh Mohan<saurabh.mohan@...tta.com>
>
> Applied to ipsec-next, thanks a lot!
>

Hi, Steffen

Thanks for picking this up!

About "xfrm: Refactor xfrm_state timer management", Thomas objects adding notifier
at clock_was_set( https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/18/36 ), frankly speaking I'm not
experienced to argue with such high level person, neither could I convince David
that getting rid of wall clock in xfrm_state is the right thing to do.
So I really don't know what to do with this patch now :( scratching my head harder。。。

Is there any slim light of hope for me to keep working on this IPsec issue?
Or should I drop it?

Thanks

-- 
浮沉随浪只记今朝笑

--fan
--
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