netdev - Re: IPsec workshop at netdev01?

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]

Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:19:38 +0100
From:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: IPsec workshop at netdev01?

Le 07/01/2015 13:55, Florian Westphal a écrit :
> Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:00:26PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
>>> Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
>>>> - We still lack a 32/64 bit compatibiltiy layer for IPsec, this issue
>>>>    comes up from time to time. Some solutions were proposed in the past
>>>>    but all had problems. The current behaviour is broken if someone tries
>>>>    to configure IPsec with 32 bit tools on a 64 bit machine. Can we get
>>>>    this right somehow or is it better to just return an error in this case?
>>>
>>> FWIW I think
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/49465/
>>>
>>> came closest to achieving full CONFIG_COMPAT support; since netlink is
>>> no longer async now I'm not sure we'd still need additonal 32-compat syscalls
>>> to make compat work for all cases.
>>>
>>> So "its ugly as hell" is probably the only problem that is hard to avoid ;-)
>>
>> Yeah, and it will be no fun to maintain it...
>
> Not sure, you'd have to make sure that no new attributes introduce need
> to add another compat hack.
>
> The best argument against supporting it is that this problem
> has existed for so long that there arguably isn't much demand
> (else, such patch would have been merged years ago).
In fact, there is regularly some proposals to fix this, but I think that
nobody has taken the time to make a patch that satisfies everybody.
There is certainly a number of "private" patch for this problem, hence it
can be good to have a consensus on this topic.


Regards,
Nicolas
--
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