netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2.6]: Check against correct policy list in ip_forward/ip6_for

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6]: Check against correct policy list in ip_forward/ip6_forward
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:34:23 +0200
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ipsec-tools-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041017231258.GA29294@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <4172943B.8050904@trash.net> <20041017212317.GA28615@gondor.apana.org.au> <4172F1AB.4020305@trash.net> <20041017231258.GA29294@gondor.apana.org.au>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5
Herbert Xu wrote:


Well it's too late to change the default policy. People rely on the default policy being allow so changing it will wreak havoc. Even if you do it only for packets with an IPsec encapsulation by checking skb->sp it may still break people who use manual keying and rely on the property that you can always add optional SAs.

You're right.

 More importantly that it'll stick out like a sore thumb in terms of

> its semantics.

__xfrm_policy_check already rejects packets without a matching policy
and skb->sp set, but it is skipped while the policy list is empty.
What, from a semantics point of view, would be wrong with making
xfrm_policy_check behave the same way ?


So let's just fix racoon.

Agreed. I have a patch I'm currently testing. Judging from a quick
grep isakmpd also doesn't add forward policies.

Regards
Patrick


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