netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] ip-xfrm: Add support for OUTPUT

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: <20180612080830.wvoeaff5hoctdgew@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:08:30 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
CC:     Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] ip-xfrm: Add support for OUTPUT_MARK

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:33:41AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:12 AM Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan
> <subashab@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds support for OUTPUT_MARK in xfrm state to exercise the
> > functionality added by kernel commit 077fbac405bf
> > ("net: xfrm: support setting an output mark.").
> >
> > Sample output with output-mark -
> >
> > src 192.168.1.1 dst 192.168.1.2
> >         proto esp spi 0x00004321 reqid 0 mode tunnel
> >         replay-window 0 flag af-unspec
> >         auth-trunc xcbc(aes) 0x3ed0af408cf5dcbf5d5d9a5fa806b211 96
> >         enc cbc(aes) 0x3ed0af408cf5dcbf5d5d9a5fa806b233
> >         anti-replay context: seq 0x0, oseq 0x0, bitmap 0x00000000
> >         output-mark 0x20000
> 
> Have you considered putting this earlier up in the output, where the
> mark is printed as well?
> 
> > +       if (tb[XFRMA_OUTPUT_MARK]) {
> > +               __u32 output_mark = rta_getattr_u32(tb[XFRMA_OUTPUT_MARK]);
> > +
> > +               fprintf(fp, "\toutput-mark 0x%x %s", output_mark, _SL_);
> > +       }
> >  }
> 
> If you wanted to implement the suggestion above, I think you could do
> that by moving this code into xfrm_xfrma_print.
> 
> Other than that, LGTM.
> 
> Acked-by: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
> 
> Steffen - what's the status of the set_mark patches? Are you holding
> them until the tree opens again?

Yes, I hold them back until after v4.18-rc1 is released and the
-next trees open again. But I plan to do a RFC version this week,
so that everybody knows about the plan we have.