On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:43:51PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > > > This is yet another ipv4 mapped ipv6 address with IPsec socket policy > > combination bug, and I'm sure it is not the last one. We could fix this > > one by adding another check to match the address family of the policy > > and the SA selector, but maybe it is better to think about how this > > should work at all. > > > > We can have only one socket policy for each direction and that > > policy accepts either ipv4 or ipv6. We treat this ipv4 mapped ipv6 > > address as ipv4 and pass it down the ipv4 stack, so this dual usage > > will not work with a socket policy. Maybe we can require IPV6_V6ONLY > > for sockets with policy attached. Thoughts? > > I'm looking at the history of this and it used to work at the start > because you'd always interpret the flow object with a family. This > appears to have been lost with 8444cf712c5f71845cba9dc30d8f530ff0d5ff83.
I'm sure it can be fixed to work with either ipv4 or ipv6. If I understand that right, it should be possible to talk ipv4 and ipv6 through that socket, but the policy will accept only one address family. > I'm working on a fix. Thanks!
