netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftest/bpf: add missed ip6ip6 test back

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: <20201105032008.GS2531@dhcp-12-153.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 11:20:08 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, William Tu <u9012063@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftest/bpf: add missed ip6ip6 test back

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:40:34AM -0800, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > +	check $TYPE
> > +	config_device
> > +	add_ipip6tnl_tunnel
> > +	ip link set dev veth1 mtu 1500
> > +	attach_bpf $DEV ipip6_set_tunnel ipip6_get_tunnel
> From looking at the ipip6_set_tunnel in test_tunnel_kern.c.
> I don't think they are testing an ip6ip6 packet.
> If the intention is to test ip6ip6, why the existing
> ip6ip6_set_tunnel does not need to be exercised?

Hi Martin,

Maybe I missed something. But I saw both ipip6_set_tunnel and
ip6ip6_set_tunnel in test_tunnel_kern.c. only set remote IPv6 address.
They didn't do anything else. The only difference between
ipip6 and ip6ip6 are in overlay network, using IPv4 or IPv6.


Thanks
Hangbin