netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v12 3/4] xfrm: Add dir validation to "in" data path lookup

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, 24 Apr 2024 12:04:12 +0200
From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: antony.antony@...unet.com, Steffen Klassert
 <steffen.klassert@...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 v12 3/4] xfrm: Add dir validation to "in" data
 path lookup

Le 24/04/2024 à 10:40, Sabrina Dubroca a écrit :
[snip]
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_proc.rst b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_proc.rst
>>> index c237bef03fb6..b4f4d9552dea 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_proc.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_proc.rst
>>> @@ -73,6 +73,9 @@ XfrmAcquireError:
>>>  XfrmFwdHdrError:
>>>  	Forward routing of a packet is not allowed
>>>
>>> +XfrmInStateDirError:
>>> +        State direction input mismatched with lookup path direction
>> It's a bit confusing because when this error occurs, the state direction is not
>> 'input'.
> 
> Agree.
> 
>> This statistic is under 'Inbound errors', so may something like this is enough:
>> 'State direction is output.'
> 
> Maybe something like:
> 
> State direction mismatch (lookup found an output state on the input path, expected input or no direction)
> 
> It's a bit verbose, but I think those extra details would help users
> understand what went wrong.
> 
Sure, it's ok for me.