netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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.

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

Thread overview: 31+ 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 15:12 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-13 15:36 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 16:40   ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 16:52     ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 17:39     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 18:31       ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 20:25         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-13 20:38           ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-13 20:43             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-14  0:58         ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-14 11:55           ` David Miller
2015-02-01 11:20           ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-01 12:26             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-02-01 13:33               ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-01 20:19                 ` David Miller
2015-02-01 21:29                   ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-02  5:07                     ` David Miller
2015-02-02  7:27                       ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-02  8:24                         ` Steffen Klassert [this message]
2015-02-02 15:30                           ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-02 15:23                         ` Phil Sutter
2015-02-02 15:47                           ` David Woodhouse
2015-02-04  0:19                         ` David Miller
2015-02-04  6:35                           ` 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 11:46   ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-21 11:45     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-21 19:16   ` [stable] " 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).