netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: do xfrm transform after nat if necessary

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: <20141103.144234.1037182010018495486.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:42:34 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: do xfrm transform after nat if necessary

From: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:53:03 +0800

> 
> 
> In function nf_nat_ipv6_out, after nat is done, nf_xfrm_me_harder()
> will be called to look up xfrm dst.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>

This is far from sufficient of a commit log message for a change that
is as serious and has as many implications as this one.

You haven't answered many questions, first of which in my mind is
why we are bypassing all of the fragmentation checks?

We're also bypassing ip6_finish_output2() which does multicast and
hooks up the neighbour.

IPV4 doesn't do this, why doesn't it have the same supposed problem
you are trying to solve?

It is not even clear to me what the problem is, because your commit
message is way too terse.
--
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