From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: [PATCHv3, ipsec-next] xfrm: Do not parse 32bits compiled xfrm netlink msg on 64bits host Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:02:50 +0100 Message-ID: <54CF3D3A.5040607@6wind.com> References: <1422349230-17394-1-git-send-email-fan.du@intel.com> <54CA0B9F.8080104@6wind.com> <20150202084443.GS13046@secunet.com> 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: Fan Du , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, fengyuleidian0615@gmail.com To: Steffen Klassert Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]:42432 "EHLO mail-we0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932818AbbBBJCy (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:02:54 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k48so37717229wev.12 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 01:02:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150202084443.GS13046@secunet.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 02/02/2015 09:44, Steffen Klassert a =E9crit : > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:29:51AM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: [snip] >> >> The point I try to make is that patching userland apps allows to use= xfrm on a >> 32bits userland / 64bits kernel. > > Ugh, I did not know that this is used that way. Which applications do= this? > So the situation is worse than I thought. What happens to such applic= ations > if we add a compat layer in the kernel? I'd guess they will break, ri= ght? A compat layer will be perfect. I just wanted to highlight the fact tha= t without this patch, it's possible to have a workaround to use netlink-xfrm and = after it, it will be impossible. > >> >> If I understand well your patch, it will not be possible anymore, al= l messages >> will be rejected. And this may break existing apps. > > This patch would have been a quick solution without the case you > mentioned. Now I fear we can't fix all cases, something will remain > broken. > I think you're right, but having a proper solution is probably the best= =2E