* xfrm by MARK: expected behavior of masking
@ 2010-10-14 13:15 Gerd v. Egidy
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Gerd v. Egidy @ 2010-10-14 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jamal; +Cc: netdev
Hi,
while looking at the xfrm by MARK code I found a case where the masking of
marks does not work as I would it expect to work.
Take for example a mark value of 5 and a mask of 0xfffffffe
->
src 192.168.5.0/24 dst 192.168.1.0/24
dir out priority 1760 ptype main
mark 5/0xfffffffe
tmpl src 172.16.1.131 dst 172.16.1.130
proto esp reqid 16384 mode tunnel
The code to check the marks always (e.g. in xfrm_policy.c, but several other
places too) looks like this:
(fl->mark & pol->mark.m) != pol->mark.v
This means that a flow marked with 5 will actually never match. You have to
use the first number in the mask (4 in this case) to make the policy work.
Is this expected behavior?
I'd expect that the kernel would either
a) still match those packets
or
b) refuse to configure such a policy
Kind regards,
Gerd
--
Address (better: trap) for people I really don't want to get mail from:
jonas@cactusamerica.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2010-10-14 13:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-10-14 13:15 xfrm by MARK: expected behavior of masking Gerd v. Egidy
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.