netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] 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: <b35396f04f5e7209c18cf3cd27ef42e8@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:09:58 -0600
From:   Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] ip-xfrm: Add support for OUTPUT_MARK

> any reason to put output-mark on its own line? Why not
> 	mark 0x10000/0x3ffff output-mark 0x20000
> 

Hi David

I will move it to the same line in v3.

> is the documentation clear on the difference between mark and 
> output-mark?

Lorenzo has described the differences in detail in the kernel commit I
had listed in the commit text of this patch. Pasting from there -

The output mark differs from the existing xfrm mark in two ways:

1. The xfrm mark is used to match xfrm policies and states, while
    the xfrm output mark is used to set the mark (and influence
    the routing) of the packets emitted by those states.
2. The existing mark is constrained to be a subset of the bits of
    the originating socket or transformed packet, but the output
    mark is arbitrary and depends only on the state.

The use of a separate mark provides additional flexibility. For
example:

- A packet subject to two transforms (e.g., transport mode inside
   tunnel mode) can have two different output marks applied to it,
   one for the transport mode SA and one for the tunnel mode SA.
- On a system where socket marks determine routing, the packets
   emitted by an IPsec tunnel can be routed based on a mark that
   is determined by the tunnel, not by the marks of the
   unencrypted packets.
- Support for setting the output marks can be introduced without
   breaking any existing setups that employ both mark-based
   routing and xfrm tunnel mode. Simply changing the code to use
   the xfrm mark for routing output packets could xfrm mark could
   change behaviour in a way that breaks these setups.

> 
>> 
>>> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ static void usage(void)
>>>         fprintf(stderr, "        [ flag FLAG-LIST ] [ sel SELECTOR ] 
>>> [ LIMIT-LIST ] [ encap ENCAP ]\n");
>>>         fprintf(stderr, "        [ coa ADDR[/PLEN] ] [ ctx CTX ] [ 
>>> extra-flag EXTRA-FLAG-LIST ]\n");
>>>         fprintf(stderr, "        [ offload [dev DEV] dir DIR ]\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "        [ output-mark OUTPUT-MARK]\n");
>> 
>> Nit: I think you want a space between OUTPUT-MARK and ].
> 
> yes.
> 

I will update this as well.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project