netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx_rcv header length assumptions

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:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:11:33 -0500
From:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx_rcv header length assumptions

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Seems fine, but :
> 
> 1) What means the "Transformed ?" you wrote several times ?
> 
The only reason that I've been able to figure out for having the
skb->len test in those places is the preceding xfrm4_policy_check()
or xfrm6_policy_check() must be able to shrink the skb->len?

When I did the original transform stuff in other code circa 1995, I'd
envisioned IP length or link layer (PPP) length shrinking (removing
padding after block ciphers) -- and apparently this implementation
extended that concept to transport layer, too.

Personally, I'd prefer that a single test be placed in the appropriate
spot in the xfrm* functions, instead.  Anybody know where?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html