[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADvbK_cmcLqOyuDjBTizj7x-nUf6HoWu1pO8S9XL1Dc63=ZWwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:26:41 +0800
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/19] xfrm: interface: support IP6IP6 and IP6IP tunnels
processing with .cb_handler
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:40 PM Nicolas Dichtel
<nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
>
> Le 05/10/2020 à 17:11, Nicolas Dichtel a écrit :
> > Le 03/10/2020 à 11:41, Xin Long a écrit :
> > [snip]
> >> When xfrmi processes the ipip packets, it does the state lookup and xfrmi
> >> device lookup both in xfrm_input(). When either of them fails, instead of
> >> returning err and continuing the next .handler in tunnel4_rcv(), it would
> >> drop the packet and return 0.
> >>
> >> It's kinda the same as xfrm_tunnel_rcv() and xfrm6_tunnel_rcv().
> >>
> >> So the safe fix is to lower the priority of xfrmi .handler but it should
> >> still be higher than xfrm_tunnel_rcv() and xfrm6_tunnel_rcv(). Having
> >> xfrmi loaded will only break IPCOMP, and it's expected. I'll post a fix:
> > Thanks. This patch fixes my test cases.
> Do you think that you will have time to send the patch before the release (v5.9)
> goes out?
Sure, I will do it tomorrow.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists