[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191017090031.44a5822e@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:00:31 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, steffen.klassert@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/6] ipsec: add TCP encapsulation support
(RFC 8229)
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:33:14 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > But can there be any potential issues if the TCP socket with esp ULP is
> > also inserted into a sockmap? (well, I think sockmap socket gets a ULP,
> > I think we prevent sockmap on top of ULP but not the other way around..)
>
> Yeah, there's nothing preventing a socket that's already in a sockmap
> from getting a ULP, only for inserting a socket in a sockmap if it
> already has a ULP (see sock_map_update_common).
>
> I gave it a quick test with espintcp, it doesn't quite seem to work: a
> sockmap program that drops everything actually drops messages, but a
> sockmap program that drops some messages based on length... doesn't.
>
> Although, to be honest, I don't see a use case for sockmap on espintcp
> sockets.
Perhaps we could reject the espintcp ULP installation when sk_user_data
is present? Would that make sense?
> > Is there any chance we could see some selftests here?
>
> For espintcp? That's planned, I need to rework my test scripts so that
> they don't need human interaction, and turn them into selftests.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists