netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 ipsec-next] xfrm: Add possibility to set the default to block if we have no policy

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:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:01:31 +0200
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     antony.antony@...unet.com
Cc:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Christian Langrock <christian.langrock@...unet.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 ipsec-next] xfrm: Add possibility to set the default to
 block if we have no policy

Le 17/08/2021 à 13:19, Antony Antony a écrit :
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 18:14:08 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
[snip]
>> Maybe renaming this field to 'drop' is enough.
> 
> action is a bitwise flag, one direction it may drop and ther other might
> be allow.
> 
Sure, but I still think drop or accept would be better.