netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, new patch for review

To: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, new patch for review
From: James Chapman <jchapman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:11:44 +0100
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx>, mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.2
Attached is a revised version of the new PPP over L2TP support for
review. Thanks DaveM and Herbert for comments so far. The following
comments have been addressed in this new version:

- use Linux list macros for all lists
- split sockaddr_pppox into separate sockaddr_pppoe and
  sockaddr_pppol2tp structs

I've split the patch into 3 diffs:

1. sockaddr_pppoe.diff  - fix sockaddr_pppox issue
2. if_pppox.h_ws.diff   - fixup whitespace formatting
3. pppol2tp-2.diff      - add PPPoL2TP

Please also check the following FIXMEs in pppol2tp.c. If these aren't
issues, I'll remove the FIXMEs and submit a new patch.

- pppol2tp_data_ready()
  lock the socket when walking sk->sk_receive_queue?
- pppol2tp_build_l2tp_header()
  unaligned accesses?
- pppol2tp_xmit()
  handle skb fragments?
- pppol2tp_create()
  sk_set_owner() - what is the real problem here?
- pppol2tp_session_setsockopt()
  change ppp channel's hdrlen on the fly?

Also, since submitting the previous version, I've made a few internal
L2TP changes which are included in the pppol2tp patch. Most relevant
is the addition of a using_ipsec flag - I'm trying to return a
read-only indicator to userspace whether the L2TP tunnel is protected
by IPSEC. Is this the right way to do it?

/james



Attachment: sockaddr_pppoe.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: if_pppox.h_ws.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: pppol2tp-2.diff
Description: Binary data

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>