netdev - Re: [PATCH net] netlink: fix netlink

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:43:51 -0500
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tgraf@...g.ch
CC:	jbenc@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pablo@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netlink: fix netlink_ack with large messages

On 11/09/13 00:00, David Miller wrote:

> The user has the message, they gave it to us in the sendmsg()
> we are responding to.  We absolutely do not need to give it
> to them again.
>
> If they care about referring to the contents of that message, they can
> refer to it in their own copy and make sure they are really looking at
> the same thing by comparing the sequence number in the netlink ACK to
> the one they used in the netlink header they gave to the kernel in the
> sendmsg() call.
>
> What happens now is pure duplication, and for such huge netlink
> messages it's really not smart at all.
>

for errors, we need to give the user something back. This has been the
behavior for 80 years now. Giving them a HUGE message
back is rediculuos(tm). Ive had enough of SCTP doing that.
We need to cap it - sort of what ICMP does.
ICMP caps at 64B; something like 128B is reasonable.

cheers,
jamal
--
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