From: "Timo Teräs" <timo.teras@iki•fi>
To: hadi@cyberus•ca
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor•apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft•net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash•net>,
netdev@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:10:04 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB48D1C.80205@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1270123246.26743.177.camel@bigi>
jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 14:47 +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
>
>> The thing is that currently FWD 'dev blah' matches the interface
>> to which the packet is being forwarded to. Someone might be using
>> this feature already.
>
> So this is the part i am missing i think. If i look at:
>
> int ip_forward(struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> .....
> if (!xfrm4_policy_check(NULL, XFRM_POLICY_FWD, skb))
> goto drop;
> ....
> ........later forwarding happens here ...
> if (!xfrm4_route_forward(skb))
> goto drop;
> ...
> }
>
> On entry we have a legit skb->skb_iif.
> The validity check is before forwarding decision (where the interface
> the packet is being forwarded to is recognized).
On entry to ip_forward the routing decision has already been made.
Both oif and iif are valid on entry.
Currently policy_check() uses oif for SPD matching.
Do note that xfrm4_route_forward() is a no-op if there's no matching
policy. It has nothing to do with routing decision, it's purpose
is to wrap the dst_entry with xfrm_dst if the flow matches a valid
SPD.
>> Your patch changes semantics on how FWD policies are matched.
>
> I agree if what you say earlier is true.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-01 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-31 16:37 [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev jamal
2010-03-31 22:58 ` jamal
2010-04-01 0:33 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 2:35 ` jamal
2010-04-01 2:52 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 4:52 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 6:01 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 6:20 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 6:28 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 6:32 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 6:39 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 11:29 ` jamal
2010-04-01 11:47 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 12:00 ` jamal
2010-04-01 12:10 ` Timo Teräs [this message]
2010-04-01 12:34 ` jamal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BB48D1C.80205@iki.fi \
--to=timo.teras@iki$(echo .)fi \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=hadi@cyberus$(echo .)ca \
--cc=herbert@gondor$(echo .)apana.org.au \
--cc=kaber@trash$(echo .)net \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox