netdev - Re: [devel-ipsec] [PATCH ipsec-next, v2] xfrm: support sending NAT keepalives in ESP in UDP states

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: <9055.1702242372@localhost>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:06:12 -0500
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@...delman.ca>
To: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
cc: davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
    kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
    herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, pablo@...filter.org, paul@...ats.ca,
    nharold@...gle.com, devel@...ux-ipsec.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [devel-ipsec] [PATCH ipsec-next, v2] xfrm: support sending NAT keepalives in ESP in UDP states


Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com> wrote:
    >> As a general comment, until this work is RCU'ed I'm wondering how it
    >> will perform on systems with thousands of SAs. As you say: this is a
    >> place for improvement.  If no keepalives are set, does the code need
    >> to walk the xfrm states at all.  I wonder if that might mitigate the
    >> situation for bigger systems that have not yet adapted.  I don't see a
    >> way to not include this code.

    > The work isn't scheduled unless there are states with a defined
    > interval, so afaict this shouldn't affect systems not using this
    > feature. Or maybe I didn't understand your point?

That wasn't obvious to me from my review, but that certainly sounds ideal.
Thank you.





Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (512 bytes)