netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/6] ipsec: add TCP encapsulation support (RFC 8229)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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.