netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: Simplify SA looking up when using wildcard source address

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: <52409A94.7090308@cogentembedded.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:46:28 +0400
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
CC:	steffen.klassert@...unet.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: Simplify SA looking up when using wildcard
 source address

Hello.

On 09/23/2013 01:18 PM, Fan Du wrote:

> I'm not quite sure I get this "wildcard source address" right,
> IMHO if a host needs to protect every traffic for a given remote host,
> then the source address is wildcard address, i.e. all ZEROs.
> (Please correct me if I'm bloodly wrong。。。)

> Here is the argument if above statement stands true:
> __xfrm4/6_state_addr_check is a four steps check, all we need to do
> is checking whether the destination address match. Passing saddr from
> flow is worst option, as the checking needs to reach the fourth step.

> So, simply this process by only checking destination address only when
> using wildcard source address for looking up SAs.

> Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
> ---
>   include/net/xfrm.h    |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c |    2 +-
>   2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

> diff --git a/include/net/xfrm.h b/include/net/xfrm.h
> index e253bf0..fdb9343 100644
> --- a/include/net/xfrm.h
> +++ b/include/net/xfrm.h
> @@ -1282,6 +1282,37 @@ xfrm_state_addr_check(const struct xfrm_state *x,
>   }
>
>   static __inline__ int
> +__xfrm4_state_daddr_check(const struct xfrm_state *x,
> +                                const xfrm_address_t *daddr)
> +{
> +        return ((daddr->a4 == x->id.daddr.a4) ? 1 : 0);

    () not needed around the *return* expression, and ?: not needed too.

WBR, Sergei

--
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