netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4] udp_tunnel: Pass UDP socket down through udp_tunnel{,6}_xmit

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: <1428434060.1373881.250400989.21CC8071@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:14:20 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, pablo@...filter.org,
	Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] udp_tunnel: Pass UDP socket down through
 udp_tunnel{,6}_xmit_skb().

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 20:56, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> >> > --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c
> >> > +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c
> >> > @@ -1100,7 +1100,7 @@ static int ip6_tnl_xmit2(struct sk_buff *skb,
> >> >         ipv6h->nexthdr = proto;
> >> >         ipv6h->saddr = fl6->saddr;
> >> >         ipv6h->daddr = fl6->daddr;
> >> > -       ip6tunnel_xmit(skb, dev);
> >> > +       ip6tunnel_xmit(NULL, skb, dev);
> >>
> >> By same should logic iptunnel_xmit call in ip_tunnel_xmit should take
> >> NULL arg for socket?
> >
> > Sure!
> >
> Actually, for consistency amongst all the IP encapsulation protocols
> and given Dave's comments on how this is supposed to work, maybe for
> the v4 and v6 tunnels we could have a raw AF_INET{6} socket opened for
> all the tunnels to use when ip_tunnel_xmit is called. If it makes a
> difference for UDP encapsulation, a UDP socket could also be opened.

Yes, agreed.

Currently the semantics seem fine to me. vxlan needs this because it is
communicating via multicast addresses and thus we depend on correct
mc_loop behaviour. Which other tunnel protocols could be affected by
this, too?
--
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