From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
To: antony.antony@secunet.com,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Christian Langrock <christian.langrock@secunet.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 ipsec-next] xfrm: Add possibility to set the default to block if we have no policy
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 18:14:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e0c347a0-f7d4-e1ef-51a8-2d8b65bccbbc@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc1364604051d6be5c4c14817817a004aba539eb.1626592022.git.antony.antony@secunet.com>
Le 18/07/2021 à 09:11, Antony Antony a écrit :
> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Sorry for my late reply, I was off.
>
> As the default we assume the traffic to pass, if we have no
> matching IPsec policy. With this patch, we have a possibility to
> change this default from allow to block. It can be configured
> via netlink. Each direction (input/output/forward) can be
> configured separately. With the default to block configuered,
> we need allow policies for all packet flows we accept.
> We do not use default policy lookup for the loopback device.
>
[snip]
> diff --git a/include/net/netns/xfrm.h b/include/net/netns/xfrm.h
> index e946366e8ba5..88c647302977 100644
> --- a/include/net/netns/xfrm.h
> +++ b/include/net/netns/xfrm.h
> @@ -65,6 +65,13 @@ struct netns_xfrm {
> u32 sysctl_aevent_rseqth;
> int sysctl_larval_drop;
> u32 sysctl_acq_expires;
> +
> + u8 policy_default;
> +#define XFRM_POL_DEFAULT_IN 1
> +#define XFRM_POL_DEFAULT_OUT 2
> +#define XFRM_POL_DEFAULT_FWD 4
> +#define XFRM_POL_DEFAULT_MASK 7
> +
[snip]
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
> index ffc6a5391bb7..6e8095106192 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
> @@ -213,6 +213,11 @@ enum {
> XFRM_MSG_GETSPDINFO,
> #define XFRM_MSG_GETSPDINFO XFRM_MSG_GETSPDINFO
>
> + XFRM_MSG_SETDEFAULT,
> +#define XFRM_MSG_SETDEFAULT XFRM_MSG_SETDEFAULT
> + XFRM_MSG_GETDEFAULT,
> +#define XFRM_MSG_GETDEFAULT XFRM_MSG_GETDEFAULT
> +
> XFRM_MSG_MAPPING,
> #define XFRM_MSG_MAPPING XFRM_MSG_MAPPING
> __XFRM_MSG_MAX
> @@ -508,6 +513,11 @@ struct xfrm_user_offload {
> #define XFRM_OFFLOAD_IPV6 1
> #define XFRM_OFFLOAD_INBOUND 2
>
> +struct xfrm_userpolicy_default {
> + __u8 dirmask;
> + __u8 action;
> +};
> +
Should XFRM_POL_DEFAULT_* be moved in the uapi?
How can a user knows what value is expected in dirmask?
Same question for action. We should avoid magic values. 0 means drop or accept?
Maybe renaming this field to 'drop' is enough.
Regards,
Nicolas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-11 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20210331144843.GA25749@moon.secunet.de>
2021-07-16 9:15 ` [PATCH ipsec-next] xfrm: Add possibility to set the default to block if we have no policy Antony Antony
2021-07-18 3:26 ` kernel test robot
2021-07-18 7:11 ` [PATCH v2 " Antony Antony
2021-07-22 9:43 ` Steffen Klassert
2021-08-11 16:14 ` Nicolas Dichtel [this message]
2021-08-17 11:19 ` Antony Antony
2021-08-25 10:01 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-07 19:35 ` [PATCH ipsec 0/2] xfrm: fix uapi for the default policy Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-07 19:35 ` [PATCH ipsec 1/2] xfrm: make user policy API complete Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-07 19:35 ` [PATCH ipsec 2/2] xfrm: notify default policy on update Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-08 1:35 ` kernel test robot
2021-09-08 7:23 ` [PATCH ipsec v2 0/2] xfrm: fix uapi for the default policy Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-08 7:23 ` [PATCH ipsec v2 1/2] xfrm: make user policy API complete Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-08 7:23 ` [PATCH ipsec v2 2/2] xfrm: notify default policy on update Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-08 7:23 ` [RFC PATCH iproute2 v2] xfrm: enable to manage default policies Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-14 14:46 ` [PATCH ipsec v3 0/2] xfrm: fix uapi for the default policy Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-14 14:46 ` [PATCH ipsec v3 1/2] xfrm: make user policy API complete Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-14 14:46 ` [PATCH ipsec v3 2/2] xfrm: notify default policy on update Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-14 14:46 ` [RFC PATCH iproute2 v2] xfrm: enable to manage default policies Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-15 9:19 ` [PATCH ipsec v3 0/2] xfrm: fix uapi for the default policy Antony Antony
2021-09-15 9:55 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-17 7:06 ` Steffen Klassert
2021-09-17 7:54 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-07 19:35 ` [RFC PATCH iproute2] xfrm: enable to manage default policies Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-01 15:14 ` [PATCH v2 ipsec-next] xfrm: Add possibility to set the default to block if we have no policy Dmitry V. Levin
2021-09-02 9:05 ` Steffen Klassert
2021-09-19 22:40 ` Paul Cercueil
2021-09-21 6:33 ` Steffen Klassert
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=e0c347a0-f7d4-e1ef-51a8-2d8b65bccbbc@6wind.com \
--to=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
--cc=antony.antony@secunet.com \
--cc=christian.langrock@secunet.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
/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).