[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZEeFd0vZawjVpluc@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:47:03 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Martin Willi <martin@...ongswan.org>
CC: Benedict Wong <benedictwong@...gle.com>,
Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v2] xfrm: Preserve xfrm interface secpath for
packets forwarded
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:45:40AM +0200, Martin Willi wrote:
>
>
> > [...] my original change also happens to break Transport-in-Tunnel
> > mode (which attempts to match the outer tunnel mode policy twice.). I
> > wonder if it's worth just reverting first
>
> Given that the offending commit has been picked up by -stable and now
> by distros, I guess this regression will start affecting more IPsec
> users.
>
> May I suggest to go with a revert of the offending commit as an
> immediate fix, and then bring in a fixed nested policy check from
> Benedict in a separate effort?
>
> I'll post a patch with the revert.
I'm fine with that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists