From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 21 14:13:30 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB53106566B
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:13:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net)
Received: from smtp.zeninc.net (smtp.zeninc.net [80.67.176.25])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4688FC17
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:13:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net)
Received: by smtp.zeninc.net (smtpd, from userid 1000)
	id C636A3F7B; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:13:27 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:13:27 +0200
From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan <vanhu@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20080721141327.GA24677@zen.inc>
References: <20080630040103.94730.qmail@mailgate.gta.com>
	<486A45AB.2080609@freebsd.org> <487EC62A.3070301@freebsd.org>
	<20080721083110.GA21786@zen.inc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080721083110.GA21786@zen.inc>
User-Agent: All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less.
Subject: Re:   FreeBSD NAT-T patch integration [CFR/CFT]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:13:30 -0000

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:31:10AM +0200, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:10:18PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> [...]
> > Please test/review the following patch against HEAD:
> > 
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~sam/nat_t-20080616.patch
> 
> I have tested the RELENG7 version of the patch, and it works well.
> 
> 
> But I noticed a misplaced #endif at the beginning of udp_ctloutput(),
> which will generate problems if INET6 is not defined:
[....]


After some more testing, I found another issue: in udp4_espdecap(),
when payload <= sizeof(uint64_t) + sizeof(struct esp), packet should
not be discarded, but just returned for normal processing.

And I also have doubts about a change in udp_ctloutput(), in the
switch statement which process optval and searches for an
UDP_ENCAP_ESPINUDP* flag.

The way you changed it forces a flags cleanup anytime.
I don't see why someone would set both UDP_ENCAP_ESPINUDP and
UDP_ENCAP_ESPINUDP_NON_IKE, but as I was tracking down a problem, I
changed it again to be processed "the old way" to ensure it was not
the source of the issue.

Sam, did you have a good reason to change that part of the code, or
was it mostly to have a more compliant coding style ?


Updated patches are available for HEAD, RELENG7 and RELENG63 (yeah :-)
here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~vanhu/NAT-T/

Please all notice that there is still the word "test" in patches
names.....



Yvan.