netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ipv6: sr: fix IPv6 initialization failure without lwtunnels

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:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:49:19 -0800
From:   Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     david.lebrun@...ouvain.be, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        lorenzo@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ipv6: sr: fix IPv6 initialization failure
 without lwtunnels

On 11/15/16, 7:18 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Lebrun <david.lebrun@...ouvain.be>
> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:17:20 +0100
>
>> On 11/14/2016 03:22 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>> I prefer option b). most LWTUNNEL encaps are done this way.
>>>
>>> seg6 and seg6_iptunnel is new segment routing code and can be under
>>> CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6 which depends on CONFIG_LWTUNNEL and CONFIG_IPV6.
>>> CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6_HMAC could then depend on CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6
>> Will do that, thanks
> This is good for the time being.
>
> Although I'd like to entertain the idea of making LWTUNNEL
> unconditionally built and considered a fundamental piece of
> networking infrastructure just like net/core/dst.c
ok, ack. I can submit a patch for that. But, I had the lwtunnel infra hooks in
CONFIG_LWTUNNEL to reduce the cost of hooks in the default fast path when it was not enabled.
Will need to re-evaluate the cost of the hooks in the default fast-path.

I am assuming you are ok with various encaps staying in their respective configs (mpls iptunnels, ila, and now
ipv6 segment routing).

thanks