On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:29 AM Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 7/26/22 10:27, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:06 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:16 AM Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Tests are mostly copied from tcp_md5 with minor changes. > >>> > >>> It covers VRF support but only based on binding multiple servers: not > >>> multiple keys bound to different interfaces. > >>> > >>> Also add a specific -t tcp_authopt to run only these tests specifically. > >>> > >> > >> Thanks for the test. > >> > >> Could you amend the existing TCP MD5 test to make sure dual sockets > >> mode is working ? > >> > >> Apparently, if we have a dual stack listener socket (AF_INET6), > >> correct incoming IPV4 SYNs are dropped. > > >> If this is the case, fixing MD5 should happen first ; > > I remember looking into this and my conclusion was that ipv4-mapped-ipv6 > is not worth supporting for AO, at least not in the initial version. > > Instead I just wrote a test to check that ipv4-mapped-ipv6 fails for AO: > https://github.com/cdleonard/tcp-authopt-test/blob/main/tcp_authopt_test/test_verify_capture.py#L191 > > On a closer look it does appear that support existed for > ipv4-mapped-ipv6 in TCP-MD5 but my test didn't actually exercise it > correctly so the test had to be fixed. > > > Do you think it makes sense to add support for ipv4-mapped-ipv6 for AO? > It's not particularly difficult to test, it was skipped due to a lack of > application use case and to keep the initial series smaller. I think this makes sense. ipv4-mapped support is definitely used. > > Adding support for this later as a separate commit should be fine. Since > ivp4-mapped-ipv6 addresses shouldn't appear on the wire giving them > special treatment "later" should raise no compatibility concerns. > > > >> I think that we are very late in the cycle (linux-5.19 should be > >> released in 5 days), and your patch set should not be merged so late. > > This was posted in order to get code reviews, I'm not actually expecting > inclusion. To be clear, I am supporting this work and would like to see it being merged hopefully soon ;)
