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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <dcc83e93-4a28-896c-b3d3-8d675bb705eb@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 16:48:38 +0100
From:   Kai Lüke <kailueke@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Paul Chaignon <paul@...ium.io>, 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"

> I agree with Eyal here.  As far as Cilium is concerned, this is not
> causing any regression.  Only the second commit, 68ac0f3810e7 ("xfrm:
> state and policy should fail if XFRMA_IF_ID 0") causes issues in a
> previously-working setup in Cilium.  We don't use xfrm interfaces.
>
I see this as a very generic question of changing userspace behavior or
not, regardless if we know how many users are affected, and from what I
know there are similar cases in the kernel where the response was that
breaking userspace is a no go - even if the intention was to be helpful
by having early errors.

Greets,
Kai