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:   Sat, 12 Dec 2020 14:59:14 +0100
From:   Jonas Bonn <>
To:     Harald Welte <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 10/12] gtp: add IPv6 support

Hi Harald,

On 12/12/2020 12:22, Harald Welte wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
> thanks again for your patches, they are very much appreciated.
> However, I don't think that it is "that easy".
> PDP contexts (at least) in GPRS/EDGE and UMTS come in three flavors:
> * IPv4 only
> * IPv6 only
> * IPv4v6 (i.e. both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address within the same tunnel)
> See for example osmo-ggsn at
> for an userspace implementation that covers all three cases,
> as well as a related automatic test suite containing cases
> for all three flavors at
> If I read your patch correctly
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 01:26:10PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
>> -	struct in_addr		ms_addr_ip4;
>> -	struct in_addr		peer_addr_ip4;
>> +	struct in6_addr		ms_addr;
>> +	struct in6_addr		peer_addr;
> this simply replaces the (inner) IPv4 "MS addr" with an IPv6 "MS addr".

Yes, that's correct.  It's currently an either-or proposition for the UE 

I actually wanted to proceed a bit carefully here because this patch 
series is already quite large.  I do plan on adding support for multiple 
MS addresses, but already just juggling mixed inner and outer tunnels 
seemed challenging enough to review.

> Sure, it is an improvement over v4-only.  But IMHO any follow-up
> change to introduce v4v6 PDP contexts would require significant changes,
> basically re-introducing the ms_add_ip4 member which you are removing here.

I think we ultimately need to take the MS (UE address) member out of the 
PDP context struct altogether.  A single PDP context can apply to even 
more than two addresses as the UE can/should be provisioned with 
multiple IPv6 addresses (as I understand it, superficially).

> Therefore, I argue very much in favor of intrducing proper IPv6 support
> (including v4v6) in one go.

For provisioning contexts via Netlink, I agree that we should try to 
avoid pathological intermediate steps.  For the actual packet handling 
of outer and inner IPv6 tunnels, I think it's moot whether or not the 
PDP contexts support multiple addresses or not: the subsequent step to 
extend to multiple IP's is a bit of churn, but doesn't immediately seem 
overly intrusive.

Anyway, I'll look into making this change...

Thanks for the review!


> Regards,
> 	Harald

Powered by blists - more mailing lists