From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFA4FA372A for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9596B21848 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="lTbhnzh/" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2439110AbfJQQAi (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:00:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f195.google.com ([209.85.215.195]:41533 "EHLO mail-pg1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2436580AbfJQQAh (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:00:37 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f195.google.com with SMTP id t3so1601086pga.8 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:00:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UN8JPWFL62rSjf9oi4n8jD/HeiVUzFcQ2Ud+GCWyi5o=; b=lTbhnzh/kXIGVWLcyf+U2Z6J2IR28rXZcgVUl708OxI5AwoXiIuGKN7V0VzzM9ygpC 84QRZ9IKQL/QNjw3BDLsytwNFgISJcRveM+YhddoHWWXzmdB665sIAv7yHuyAorAPnFS 7H5GytsaC8BcJaEztvQtbdOqk3iOKGJUxhBWkhaSZHCeEaF90AQpilqjthdBL0+PGDbM NQYUPSm6xjKbjW5/+6EkPbVTfZZJ4az2R+I2xagdlki8BYbmyddGk4/X6YHUSHnV9beL rdZjTB3AujQc6WUgIyVBZomPQ20G5cq7pb1Lb+IfOAG+AGl4p8j0iPyTkm5BdLt/ecr3 PuHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UN8JPWFL62rSjf9oi4n8jD/HeiVUzFcQ2Ud+GCWyi5o=; b=iHCC5YWw4r82VAYKtl8M2MV2xj6OhTe1A5ogRfrRETFS+V/irHoIGey639duS0aebP eqwB7/p9lxeJ5apCNH5xdM2aS1pQlskOB0R7kit//Kvn2gFe0kkbQMKCVKzJveFTZZvJ wRHOdemA0n6L4T2WsogxrbWT3oQNjiI+zw54f2CDwX7fR3OTlHCXJSMDJ/A94zVaGYqM x5lAN5roV//GziT4g/sCjhrW5ltCyKR/vDRzwdjZk3GNlWUjS8Eyzv9YIKQkhYjCYqCG Z18A6bneW9olCnzd1tzQZcW9KB9agWBlluj9uXFM8GiqNXx0c9tqwwfxSJEywOXg6IgC ia9A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWmu+ii8N0Kjd8XFVxj9CM1qRImkv6zPl0Qw4Az8WbtkKlNuj3+ qua9JwZXyrEwEaLaRzzgZTE7o2CslrA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzgyC1wI+J8PP1KHlh4Ur9eFHC/dDfXGVV975j8a+YK66gfH9bEXLFCSo6+f6Y29N1d4Kzz+g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bd82:: with SMTP id z2mr5350622pjr.15.1571328034927; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cakuba.netronome.com (c-73-202-202-92.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.202.202.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q33sm3711803pgm.50.2019.10.17.09.00.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:00:31 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Sabrina Dubroca Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, steffen.klassert@secunet.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/6] ipsec: add TCP encapsulation support (RFC 8229) Message-ID: <20191017090031.44a5822e@cakuba.netronome.com> In-Reply-To: <20191017143314.GA621051@bistromath.localdomain> References: <20191014.144327.888902765137276425.davem@davemloft.net> <20191015082424.GA435630@bistromath.localdomain> <20191015114657.45954831@cakuba.netronome.com> <20191017143314.GA621051@bistromath.localdomain> Organization: Netronome Systems, Ltd. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:33:14 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > But can there be any potential issues if the TCP socket with esp ULP is > > also inserted into a sockmap? (well, I think sockmap socket gets a ULP, > > I think we prevent sockmap on top of ULP but not the other way around..) > > Yeah, there's nothing preventing a socket that's already in a sockmap > from getting a ULP, only for inserting a socket in a sockmap if it > already has a ULP (see sock_map_update_common). > > I gave it a quick test with espintcp, it doesn't quite seem to work: a > sockmap program that drops everything actually drops messages, but a > sockmap program that drops some messages based on length... doesn't. > > Although, to be honest, I don't see a use case for sockmap on espintcp > sockets. Perhaps we could reject the espintcp ULP installation when sk_user_data is present? Would that make sense? > > Is there any chance we could see some selftests here? > > For espintcp? That's planned, I need to rework my test scripts so that > they don't need human interaction, and turn them into selftests.