All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, <mst@redhat.com>,
	<herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	<jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:24:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150202082446.GR13046@secunet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1422862030.11044.86.camel@infradead.org>

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 07:27:10AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 21:07 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > We might as well have not have implemented the IPSEC stack at all,
> > because as a result of the userland VPN stuff our IPSEC stack is
> > largely unused except by a very narrow group of users.
> 
> Well, I'd love to make better use of it if I can. I do suspect it makes
> most sense for userspace to continue to manage the probing of UDP
> connectivity, and the fallback to TCP mode — and I suspect it also makes
> sense to continue to use tun for passing packets up to the VPN client
> when it's using the TCP transport.
> 
> So the question would be how we handle redirecting the packet flow to
> the optional UDP transport, when the VPN client determines that it's
> available. For the sake of the user setting up firewall and routing
> rules, I do think it's important that it continues to appear to
> userspace as the *same* device for the entire lifetime of the session,
> regardless of which transport the packets happen to be using at a given
> moment in time. It doesn't *have* to be tun, though. 
> 
> You don't seem to like my suggestion of somehow pushing down an XFRM
> state to the tun device to direct the packets out there instead of up to
> userspace. Do you have an alternative suggestion... or a specific
> concern that would help me come up with something you like better?

Maybe you want to use a virtual tunnel interface (vti) what we have
already. Everything that is routed through such an interface is
guaranteed to be either encrypted if a matching xfrm state is present
or dropped. Same on the rceive side, everything that is received by
this interface is guaranteed to be IPsec processed. So you can do
a routing based decision about the IPsec processing.

While I'm sure it could handle the ESP in UDP encapsulation, I'm not that
sure about your TCP fallback because this requires a valid xfrm state
to allow packets to pass. Using the same interface for both is probably
not possible.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, eric.dumazet@gmail.com,
	mst@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	jan.kiszka@siemens.com, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:24:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150202082446.GR13046@secunet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1422862030.11044.86.camel@infradead.org>

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 07:27:10AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 21:07 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > We might as well have not have implemented the IPSEC stack at all,
> > because as a result of the userland VPN stuff our IPSEC stack is
> > largely unused except by a very narrow group of users.
> 
> Well, I'd love to make better use of it if I can. I do suspect it makes
> most sense for userspace to continue to manage the probing of UDP
> connectivity, and the fallback to TCP mode — and I suspect it also makes
> sense to continue to use tun for passing packets up to the VPN client
> when it's using the TCP transport.
> 
> So the question would be how we handle redirecting the packet flow to
> the optional UDP transport, when the VPN client determines that it's
> available. For the sake of the user setting up firewall and routing
> rules, I do think it's important that it continues to appear to
> userspace as the *same* device for the entire lifetime of the session,
> regardless of which transport the packets happen to be using at a given
> moment in time. It doesn't *have* to be tun, though. 
> 
> You don't seem to like my suggestion of somehow pushing down an XFRM
> state to the tun device to direct the packets out there instead of up to
> userspace. Do you have an alternative suggestion... or a specific
> concern that would help me come up with something you like better?

Maybe you want to use a virtual tunnel interface (vti) what we have
already. Everything that is routed through such an interface is
guaranteed to be either encrypted if a matching xfrm state is present
or dropped. Same on the rceive side, everything that is received by
this interface is guaranteed to be IPsec processed. So you can do
a routing based decision about the IPsec processing.

While I'm sure it could handle the ESP in UDP encapsulation, I'm not that
sure about your TCP fallback because this requires a valid xfrm state
to allow packets to pass. Using the same interface for both is probably
not possible.

  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-02  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-13 14:59 [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 14:59 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 15:12 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-13 15:12   ` [Qemu-devel] " Herbert Xu
2010-04-13 15:12   ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-13 15:36 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 15:36   ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 16:40   ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 16:40     ` [Qemu-devel] " Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 16:52     ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 16:52       ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 17:39     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 17:39       ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 18:31       ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 18:31         ` [Qemu-devel] " Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 20:25         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 20:25           ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 20:38           ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 20:38             ` [Qemu-devel] " Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 20:43             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 20:43               ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-14  0:58         ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-14  0:58           ` [Qemu-devel] " Herbert Xu
2010-04-14  0:58           ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-14 11:55           ` David Miller
2010-04-14 11:55             ` [Qemu-devel] " David Miller
2010-04-14 11:55             ` David Miller
2015-02-01 11:20           ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-01 11:20             ` [Qemu-devel] " David Woodhouse
2015-02-01 12:26             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-02-01 12:26               ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-02-01 13:33               ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-01 13:33                 ` [Qemu-devel] " David Woodhouse
2015-02-01 20:19                 ` David Miller
2015-02-01 20:19                   ` [Qemu-devel] " David Miller
2015-02-01 21:29                   ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-01 21:29                     ` [Qemu-devel] " David Woodhouse
2015-02-02  5:07                     ` David Miller
2015-02-02  5:07                       ` [Qemu-devel] " David Miller
2015-02-02  5:07                       ` David Miller
2015-02-02  7:27                       ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-02  7:27                         ` [Qemu-devel] " David Woodhouse
2015-02-02  8:24                         ` Steffen Klassert [this message]
2015-02-02  8:24                           ` Steffen Klassert
2015-02-02 15:30                           ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-02 15:30                             ` [Qemu-devel] " David Woodhouse
2015-02-02 15:23                         ` Phil Sutter
2015-02-02 15:23                           ` [Qemu-devel] " Phil Sutter
2015-02-02 15:47                           ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-02 15:47                             ` [Qemu-devel] " David Woodhouse
2015-02-04  0:19                         ` David Miller
2015-02-04  0:19                           ` [Qemu-devel] " David Miller
2015-02-04  6:35                           ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-04  6:35                             ` [Qemu-devel] " David Woodhouse
2021-06-25 15:56                       ` Bringing the SSL VPN data path back in-kernel David Woodhouse
2010-04-21 11:35 ` [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-21 11:35   ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-21 11:46   ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-21 11:46     ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2010-04-21 11:45     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-21 11:45       ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-21 19:16   ` [stable] " Greg KH
2010-04-21 19:16     ` [Qemu-devel] " Greg KH
2010-09-14 15:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin

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=20150202082446.GR13046@secunet.com \
    --to=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.