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]

Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 21:33:49 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Kai Lueke <kailueke@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Paul Chaignon <paul@...ium.io>
Cc:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return
 error"

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:11:06 +0100 Kai Lueke wrote:
> > Agreed. FWIW would be great if patch #2 started flowing towards Linus'es
> > tree separately if the discussion on #1 is taking longer.  
> 
> to preserve the initial goal of helping to uncover id 0 usage I think it
> would be best to have the revert be accompanied by a patch that instead
> creates a kernel log warning (or whatever).

extack would be best, but that would mean a little bit of plumbing 
so more likely net-next material. Which would have to come after.

> Since I never did that I suggest to not wait for me.
> Also, feel free to do the revert yourself with a different commit
> message if mine didn't capture the things appropriately.

TBH I'm not 100% clear on the nature of the regression. Does Cilium
update the configuration later to make if_id be non-zero? Or the broken 
interface is not used but not being able to create it fails the whole
configuration?