netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if

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: <d5e58052-86df-7ffa-02a0-fc4db5a7bbdf@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 15:17:23 +0100
From:   Kai Lüke <kailueke@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return
 error"

Hi,
> Whereas 8dce43919566 ("xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error")
> involves xfrm interfaces which don't appear in the pull request.
>
> In which case, why should that commit be reverted?

Correct me if I misunderstood this but reading the commit message it is
explicitly labeled as a behavior change for userspace:

    With this commit:
     ip link add ipsec0  type xfrm dev lo  if_id 0
     Error: if_id must be non zero.

Changing behavior this way is from my understanding a regression because
it breaks programs that happened to work before, even if they worked
incorrect (cf. https://lwn.net/Articles/726021/ "The current process for
Linux development says that kernel patches cannot break programs that
rely on the ABI. That means a program that runs on the 4.0 kernel should
be able to run on the 5.0 kernel, Levin said.").

Regards,
Kai