netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 1/5] xfrm: migrate encap should be set in migrate call

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aS1eEWq2aFHWV5sH@secunet.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:21:21 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Antony Antony <antony.antony@...unet.com>
CC: 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 1/5] xfrm: migrate encap should be set in
 migrate call

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:29:08AM +0100, Antony Antony wrote:
> The existing code does not allow migration from UDP encapsulation to
> non-encapsulation (ESP). This is useful when migrating from behind a
> NAT to no NAT, or from IPv4 with NAT to IPv6 without NAT.
> 
> With this fix, while migrating state, the existing encap will be copied
> only if the migrate call includes the encap attribute.
> 
> Which fixes tag should I add?
> Fixes: 80c9abaabf42 ("[XFRM]: Extension for dynamic update of endpoint address(es)") ?
> or
> Fixes: 4ab47d47af20 ("xfrm: extend MIGRATE with UDP encapsulation port") ?

If this is a fix, it should go to the ipsec tree, not to
ipsec-next. But is this really a fix? Do we want to have
that backported? It changes the behaviour when the original
state used encapsulation.