Hi, Kevin On 2013年09月26日 15:31, Kevin Wilson wrote:
Hi, Of course. But the (unanswered) question is: when sp is non NULL and we are working with IPsec, why shoudn't we send redirect in such a case ?
Apologize for replying late. I think you probably missing what "ICMP redirect" does, if so please take a look at this link: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094702... My understanding is: If host is protected by gateway A using IPsec, even if a better routing for host is gateway B, gateway A cannot tell host to using gateway B as next hop(sending redirect), as IPsec policy is on gateway A only, not necessarily on gateway B. I think this is scenario that the patch is try to describe.
rgs Kevin
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:02 AM, bill4carson<bill4carson@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kevin
On 2013年09月25日 02:52, Kevin Wilson wrote:
Hi, I am looking at this patch: http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/08/24/29 and I cannot understand it. Can somebody please try to explain ? more specifically: Can somebody please give an example of some setup of IPsec tunnel where the ip_rt_send_redirect() method should not be called when the skb->sp is not NULL ?
+ if (rt->rt_flags&RTCF_DOREDIRECT&& !opt->srr&& !skb->sp) ^^^^^^^ If IPsec policy is not enabled for a specific flow that this skb matches, skb->sp is NULL.
(in other words, why if the SKB is and IPsec SKB, we should not send a redirect in such a case while forwarding a packet; note I am talking about IPv4)
Note that the check for skb->sp was changed in recent kernels to skb_sec_path(skb), but it is essentially the same.
Regards, Kevin
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
-- 八百里秦川尘土飞扬,三千万老陕齐吼秦腔。
--bill
-- 八百里秦川尘土飞扬,三千万老陕齐吼秦腔。 --bill