[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221214063929.GO704954@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 07:39:29 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Benedict Wong <benedictwong@...gle.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <nharold@...gle.com>,
<lorenzo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 ipsec] Fix XFRM-I support for nested ESP tunnels
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:34:55AM +0000, Benedict Wong wrote:
> This change adds support for nested IPsec tunnels by ensuring that
> XFRM-I verifies existing policies before decapsulating a subsequent
> policies. Addtionally, this clears the secpath entries after policies
> are verified, ensuring that previous tunnels with no-longer-valid
> do not pollute subsequent policy checks.
>
> This is necessary especially for nested tunnels, as the IP addresses,
> protocol and ports may all change, thus not matching the previous
> policies. In order to ensure that packets match the relevant inbound
> templates, the xfrm_policy_check should be done before handing off to
> the inner XFRM protocol to decrypt and decapsulate.
>
> Notably, raw ESP/AH packets did not perform policy checks inherently,
> whereas all other encapsulated packets (UDP, TCP encapsulated) do policy
> checks after calling xfrm_input handling in the respective encapsulation
> layer.
>
> Test: Verified with additional Android Kernel Unit tests
> Signed-off-by: Benedict Wong <benedictwong@...gle.com>
> ---
> net/xfrm/xfrm_interface.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
Sorry for the late reply, I've overlooked this on the list.
Please Cc me directly for IPsec patches.
net/xfrm/xfrm_interface.c was renamed to xfrm_interface_core.c,
so your patch does not apply. Can you please respin the patch?
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists