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]
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:04:44 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...roma2.it>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Lungaroni <paolo.lungaroni@...t.it>,
        Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next,v2,4/5] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4 behavior

On 11/13/20 10:02 AM, Stefano Salsano wrote:
> Il 2020-11-13 17:55, Jakub Kicinski ha scritto:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:49:17 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 11/12/20 6:28 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote:
>>>> The implementation of SRv6 End.DT4 differs from the the
>>>> implementation of SRv6
>>>> End.DT6 due to the different *route input* lookup functions. For
>>>> IPv6 is it
>>>> possible to force the routing lookup specifying a routing table
>>>> through the
>>>> ip6_pol_route() function (as it is done in the
>>>> seg6_lookup_any_nexthop()).
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that the IPv6 variant got in without the VRF piece.
>>
>> Should we make it a requirement for this series to also extend the v6
>> version to support the preferred VRF-based operation? Given VRF is
>> better and we require v4 features to be implemented for v6?
> 
> I think it is better to separate the two aspects... adding a missing
> feature in IPv4 datapath should not depend on improving the quality of
> the implementation of the IPv6 datapath :-)
> 
> I think that Andrea is willing to work on improving the IPv6
> implementation, but this should be considered after this patchset...
> 

agreed. The v6 variant has existed for a while. The v4 version is
independent.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ