summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorUlises Mendez Martinez <umendez@google.com>2026-09-04 15:07:09 +0000
committerJosh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>2026-09-13 18:15:43 -0700
commit7e61560628d17ea6b1d8ee370f6d42694cff8758 (patch)
treee6080164b2f4c4c419894bdb3ce4d956ca9a98c5 /Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst
downloadlinux-stable-7e61560628d17ea6b1d8ee370f6d42694cff8758.tar.gz
linux-stable-7e61560628d17ea6b1d8ee370f6d42694cff8758.zip
objtool: Validate disassembler headers in libopcodes probegrafted
commit 3f2de814c059 ("objtool: Fix libopcodes linking with static libraries") tested for libopcodes availability by linking a test snippet with a forward declaration of disassemble_init_for_target(). However, testing symbol linkage with an extern declaration only verifies the presence of the library (.so/.a) and bypasses checking for development headers (binutils-dev). On systems where libopcodes is present without development headers installed, the probe succeeds, enabling BUILD_DISAS. Subsequent compilation of objtool then fails: fatal error: 'bfd.h' file not found 113 | #include <bfd.h> Additionally, the probe invokes $(HOSTCC) without $(HOSTCFLAGS), ignoring any sysroot or include flags specified for the host compiler. Fix this by including <bfd.h> and <dis-asm.h> directly in the test snippet, passing $(HOSTCFLAGS) so host compiler options are respected, and defining PACKAGE="objtool" to satisfy the configuration check in <bfd.h>. Fixes: 3f2de814c059 ("objtool: Fix libopcodes linking with static libraries") Fixes: 436326bc525d ("objtool: fix build failure due to missing libopcodes check") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Assisted-by: Antigravity:Gemini-Next Signed-off-by: Ulises Mendez Martinez <umendez@google.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260904150710.2997558-1-umendez@google.com Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst46
1 files changed, 46 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst b/Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..afe9d7b48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+=====
+IPsec
+=====
+
+
+Here documents known IPsec corner cases which need to be keep in mind when
+deploy various IPsec configuration in real world production environment.
+
+1. IPcomp:
+ Small IP packet won't get compressed at sender, and failed on
+ policy check on receiver.
+
+Quote from RFC3173::
+
+ 2.2. Non-Expansion Policy
+
+ If the total size of a compressed payload and the IPComp header, as
+ defined in section 3, is not smaller than the size of the original
+ payload, the IP datagram MUST be sent in the original non-compressed
+ form. To clarify: If an IP datagram is sent non-compressed, no
+
+ IPComp header is added to the datagram. This policy ensures saving
+ the decompression processing cycles and avoiding incurring IP
+ datagram fragmentation when the expanded datagram is larger than the
+ MTU.
+
+ Small IP datagrams are likely to expand as a result of compression.
+ Therefore, a numeric threshold should be applied before compression,
+ where IP datagrams of size smaller than the threshold are sent in the
+ original form without attempting compression. The numeric threshold
+ is implementation dependent.
+
+Current IPComp implementation is indeed by the book, while as in practice
+when sending non-compressed packet to the peer (whether or not packet len
+is smaller than the threshold or the compressed len is larger than original
+packet len), the packet is dropped when checking the policy as this packet
+matches the selector but not coming from any XFRM layer, i.e., with no
+security path. Such naked packet will not eventually make it to upper layer.
+The result is much more wired to the user when ping peer with different
+payload length.
+
+One workaround is try to set "level use" for each policy if user observed
+above scenario. The consequence of doing so is small packet(uncompressed)
+will skip policy checking on receiver side.