[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131209103856.GL31491@secunet.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:38:56 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] xfrm: Restrict "level use" for IPComp
configuration
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:52:41AM +0800, Fan Du wrote:
>
> diff --git a/net/key/af_key.c b/net/key/af_key.c
> index 911ef03..d37a2c1 100644
> --- a/net/key/af_key.c
> +++ b/net/key/af_key.c
> @@ -1895,6 +1895,12 @@ parse_ipsecrequest(struct xfrm_policy *xp, struct sadb_x_ipsecrequest *rq)
> return -ENOBUFS;
> }
>
> + /* IPComp requires level use option to accomodate both compressed
> + * and non-compressed packet when checking policy.
> + */
> + if ((t->id.proto == IPPROTO_COMP) && (t->optional == 0))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> /* addresses present only in tunnel mode */
> if (t->mode == XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL) {
> u8 *sa = (u8 *) (rq + 1);
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> index 52efe71..d7216ea 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> @@ -1293,6 +1293,10 @@ static int validate_tmpl(int nr, struct xfrm_user_tmpl *ut, u16 family)
> default:
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> +
> + /* Refuse any IPComp conf that missing "level use" */
> + if ((ut[i].id.proto == IPPROTO_COMP) && (ut[i].optional == 0))
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
I think this will make a lot of people unhappy. It was never required
to set 'optional' for ipcomp, and I'd bet that most users don't set
it for ipcomp. I understand the problem, but we can't fix it like that.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists