netdev - Re: [RFC] mac80211: clean up frame receive handling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:14:03 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc:	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Wu <flamingice@...rmilk.net>,
	Tomas Winkler <tomasw@...il.com>, Jouni Malinen <j@...fi>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mac80211: clean up frame receive handling


> > +static bool ieee80211_frame_allowed(struct ieee80211_txrx_data *rx)
> > +{
> > +	static const u8 pae_group_addr[ETH_ALEN]
> > +		= { 0x01, 0x80, 0xC2, 0x00, 0x00, 0x03 };
> > +	struct ethhdr *ehdr = (struct ethhdr *)rx->skb->data;
> > +
> > +	if (rx->skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_PAE) &&
> > +	    (compare_ether_addr(ehdr->h_dest, pae_group_addr) == 0 ||
> > +	     compare_ether_addr(ehdr->h_dest, rx->dev->dev_addr) == 0))
> > +		return true;
> 
> Should you reverse these two compare_ether_addr calls?
> rx->dev->dev_addr seems more likely for any given packet.  It probably
> makes little difference but it seems like checking for that first
> would still be better.

I think in theory all eapol frames are sent to the PAE group address,
but I have no idea which of the checks would be more efficient. It seems
that the first could be optimised a lot because it's constant too...

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)