From: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
To: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
jchapman@katalix.com, liuhangbin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: add peer_offset parameter
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 15:53:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171228145340.GA1292@alphalink.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d51dc65a40c5e335984e95a1e6db0eea00d9fd13.1513951129.git.lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 03:10:18PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Introduce peer_offset parameter in order to add the capability
> to specify two different values for payload offset on tx/rx side.
> If just offset is provided by userspace use it for rx side as well
> in order to maintain compatibility with older l2tp versions
>
Sorry for being late on this, I originally missed this patchset and
only noticed it yesterday.
Lorenzo, can you give some context around this new feature?
Quite frankly I can't see the point of it. I've never heard of offsets
in L2TPv3, and for L2TPv2, the offset value is already encoded in the
header.
After a quick review of L2TPv3 and pseudowires RFCs, I still don't see
how adding some padding between the L2TPv3 header and the payload could
constitute a valid frame. Of course, the base feature is already there,
but after a quick test, it looks like the padding bits aren't
initialised and leak memory.
So, unless I missed something, setting offsets in L2TPv3 is
non-compliant, the current implementation is buggy and most likely
unused. I'd really prefer getting the implementation fixed, or even
removed entirely. Extending it to allow asymmetrical offset values
looks wrong to me, unless you have a use case in mind.
Regards,
Guillaume
PS: I also noticed that iproute2 has a "peer_offset" option, but it's a
noop.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-28 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-22 14:10 [PATCH net-next 0/2] l2tp: fix offset/peer_offset conf parameters Lorenzo Bianconi
2017-12-22 14:10 ` [PATCH net-next 1/2] l2tp: fix missing print session offset info Lorenzo Bianconi
2017-12-22 14:10 ` [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: add peer_offset parameter Lorenzo Bianconi
2017-12-28 14:53 ` Guillaume Nault [this message]
2017-12-28 18:23 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2017-12-28 19:45 ` Guillaume Nault
2017-12-29 18:53 ` James Chapman
2017-12-29 22:21 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-01-02 18:05 ` Guillaume Nault
2018-01-02 19:28 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-01-02 20:18 ` James Chapman
2018-01-03 14:16 ` Guillaume Nault
2018-01-03 15:06 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-01-03 16:35 ` Guillaume Nault
2018-01-08 17:27 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-01-02 20:08 ` James Chapman
2018-01-02 20:59 ` James Chapman
2018-01-03 14:27 ` Guillaume Nault
2018-01-02 17:50 ` Guillaume Nault
2018-01-02 20:08 ` James Chapman
2017-12-27 17:12 ` [PATCH net-next 0/2] l2tp: fix offset/peer_offset conf parameters David Miller
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=20171228145340.GA1292@alphalink.fr \
--to=g.nault@alphalink.fr \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jchapman@katalix.com \
--cc=liuhangbin@gmail.com \
--cc=lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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).