[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACby=pmnH0kyndLdviy-MLUN5rTYVtEm8YC5n+z1XZdf1SqsRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:05:27 -0700
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] bpf: BPF for lightweight tunnel encapsulation
On 1 November 2016 at 13:33, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> You need to show that is integrity is maintained with these patches.
> Part of this can be done, but part of this needs to be established in
> testing.
>
> I've already given specifics for at least one potential source of
> issues in routing issues. I would like to know what happens if someone
> rewrites an IPv4 packet into IPv6 packet or vice versa. AFAICT we
> would be send an IPv6 using an IPv4 route, or an IPv4 using an IPv6
> route. What is supposed to happen in these circumstances? What
> actually happens?
>
> Similarly, someone overwrites the whole packet with 0xff. What happens
> when we try to send that?
OK, I will add these tests to the selftest in the next iteration.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists