From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: IPsec workshop at netdev01? Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:19:38 +0100 Message-ID: <54B4022A.9080103@6wind.com> References: <20150106101936.GC31458@secunet.com> <20150106170026.GD11324@breakpoint.cc> <20150107103137.GB13046@secunet.com> <20150107125554.GF11324@breakpoint.cc> Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim , Herbert Xu , David Miller To: Florian Westphal , Steffen Klassert Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180]:33658 "EHLO mail-lb0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751120AbbALRTl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:19:41 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l4so18740820lbv.11 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:19:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150107125554.GF11324@breakpoint.cc> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 07/01/2015 13:55, Florian Westphal a =E9crit : > Steffen Klassert wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:00:26PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: >>> Steffen Klassert wrote: >>>> - We still lack a 32/64 bit compatibiltiy layer for IPsec, this is= sue >>>> comes up from time to time. Some solutions were proposed in the= past >>>> but all had problems. The current behaviour is broken if someon= e tries >>>> to configure IPsec with 32 bit tools on a 64 bit machine. Can w= e get >>>> this right somehow or is it better to just return an error in t= his case? >>> >>> FWIW I think >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/49465/ >>> >>> came closest to achieving full CONFIG_COMPAT support; since netlink= is >>> no longer async now I'm not sure we'd still need additonal 32-compa= t syscalls >>> to make compat work for all cases. >>> >>> So "its ugly as hell" is probably the only problem that is hard to = avoid ;-) >> >> Yeah, and it will be no fun to maintain it... > > Not sure, you'd have to make sure that no new attributes introduce ne= ed > to add another compat hack. > > The best argument against supporting it is that this problem > has existed for so long that there arguably isn't much demand > (else, such patch would have been merged years ago). In fact, there is regularly some proposals to fix this, but I think tha= t nobody has taken the time to make a patch that satisfies everybody. There is certainly a number of "private" patch for this problem, hence = it can be good to have a consensus on this topic. Regards, Nicolas