netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Support for anonymous tunnel decapsulation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <76c2a8bf-e8c8-7402-ba20-a493fbf7c0e4@6wind.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:32:10 +0200
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@...ege.be>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, dsahern@...nel.org, tom@...bertland.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Support for anonymous tunnel decapsulation

Le 26/08/2021 à 18:23, Justin Iurman a écrit :

[snip]

>>> Thoughts?
>> I'm not sure to understand why the current code isn't enough. The fallback
>> tunnels created by legacy IP tunnels drivers are able to receive and decapsulate
>> any encapsulated packets.
> 
> Because, right now, you need to use the ip6_tunnel module and explicitly configure a tunnel, as you described below. The goal of this patch is to provide a way to apply an ip6ip6 decapsulation *without* having to configure a tunnel.

What is the difference between setting a sysctl somewhere and putting an
interface up?