[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEpfYEgDvEqVfOOo@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:02:24 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Aakash Kumar Shankarappa <saakashkumar@...vell.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com"
<edumazet@...gle.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "horms@...nel.org"
<horms@...nel.org>, Abed Mohammad Kamaluddin <akamaluddin@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] xfrm: Duplicate SPI Handling – IPsec-v3
Compliance Concern
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:39:59AM +0000, Aakash Kumar Shankarappa wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
> Thanks for the review.
> Agreed. As per the RFC, for unicast traffic, the packet is looked up in the SAD based on the SPI and optionally the protocol.
> Since the protocol is optional and no existing lookup incorporates spi + protocol , I used the closest available function — xfrm_state_lookup_byspi(). If you agree, I can add a new lookup function that matches on both SPI and protocol, as shown below.
> Let me know your comment.
Yes, something like this should do it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists