netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 0/9] ipv6: Extension header infrastructure

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 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, 25 Dec 2019 16:19:27 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     tom@...bertland.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 0/9] ipv6: Extension header infrastructure

From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:55:39 -0800

> This patchset improves the IPv6 extension header infrastructure
> to make extension headers more usable and scalable.
> 
>   - Reorganize extension header files to separate out common
>     API components
>   - Create common TLV handler that will can be used in other use
>     cases (e.g. segment routing TLVs, UDP options)
>   - Allow registration of TLV handlers
>   - Elaborate on the TLV tables to include more characteristics
>   - Add a netlink interface to set TLV parameters (such as
>     alignment requirements, authorization to send, etc.)
>   - Enhance validation of TLVs being sent. Validation is strict
>     (unless overridden by admin) following that sending clause
>     of the robustness principle
>   - Allow non-privileged users to set Hop-by-Hop and Destination
>     Options if authorized by the admin

I see no explanation as to why we want to do this, nor why any of this
is desirable at all or at any level.

So as in the past, I will keep pushing back on this series because I
see no real well defined, reasonable, impetus for it.

Sorry.