[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f23c994-5f1a-4b91-9af9-d9d577a6121a@6wind.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:05:02 +0200
From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>, antony.antony@...unet.com,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
devel@...ux-ipsec.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v9] xfrm: Add Direction to the SA in or out
Le 11/04/2024 à 09:22, Steffen Klassert a écrit :
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:37:27AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> Le 10/04/2024 à 10:17, Sabrina Dubroca a écrit :
>> [snip]
>>>> Why isn't it possible to restrict the use of an input SA to the input path and
>>>> output SA to xmit path?
>>>
>>> Because nobody has written a patch for it yet :)
>>>
>> For me, it should be done in this patch/series ;-)
>
> I tend to disagree here. Adding the direction as a lookup key
> is IMO beyond the scope of this patch. That's complicated and
> would defer this series by months. Given that the upcomming IPTFS
> implementation has a lot of direction specific config options,
> it makes sense to take that this patch now. Otherwise we have the
> direction specific options in input and output states forever.
I don't understand why the direction could not be mandatory and checked for new
options only (offload, iptfs, etc.) and reject for legacy use cases.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists