Re: [PATCH net-next v2] xfrm: make local error reporting more robust

[PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-07-29
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com> · 2013-07-30
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-07-30
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com> · 2013-07-30
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-07-30
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> · 2013-07-31
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-08-01
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com> · 2013-08-01
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-08-08
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Eric Dumazet <hidden> · 2013-08-08
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-08-08
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-08-10
Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family · Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com> · 2013-08-12
[PATCH net-next] xfrm: make local error reporting more robust · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-08-13
[PATCH net-next v2] xfrm: make local error reporting more robust · Hannes Frederic Sowa <hidden> · 2013-08-13
Re: [PATCH net-next v2] xfrm: make local error reporting more robust · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> · 2013-08-13

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2013-08-13 23:35:08

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <redacted>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:56:44 +0200

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 07:54:14AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 06:16:29PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:

quoted

Seems skb->encapsulated helps, but I still have to wire it up for the ipv6
tunnels.

I just prototyped this patch, but I fear I now introduced a dependency
from core xfrm to ipv6, which I would like to have prevented (this would
even happen if I put xfrm_local_error in a header file). Is this actually
a problem? I fear so. The other way would be to put the local_error
handler as function pointers somewhere reachable from struct sock.

Maybe we should put a local_error() function pointer to struct
xfrm_state_afinfo and call it via inner_mode->afinfo->local_error().

This should always call the right local_error function and we
would not need to touch generic networking code to fix it.

Sorry, had to do a v2, because I missed two more unsafe skb->sk dereferences.
I will post a further one (unsafe determination of mtu) as a seperate patch
(needs its own commit message).

[PATCH net-next v2] xfrm: make local error reporting more robust

FWIW, this looks fine to me, and I hope Steffen will take care of
it soon.

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help