netdev - Re: [RFC] wireless, ipv4, ipv6: drop GTK-protected unicast IP packets

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:	Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:24:27 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jouni Malinen <jouni@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] wireless, ipv4, ipv6: drop GTK-protected unicast IP
 packets

On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 14:08 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 14:05 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 
> > @@ -498,7 +500,8 @@ struct sk_buff {
> >  	 * headers if needed
> >  	 */
> >  	__u8			encapsulation:1;
> > -	/* 7/9 bit hole (depending on ndisc_nodetype presence) */
> > +	__u8			drop_unicast:1;
> 
> The obvious question is here, and for IPv4/IPv6 - should the wireless
> stack be responsible for doing this instead?

I don't really like the idea of reserving a bit for this in sk_buff,
and propagate it in every cloning ...

Someone should replace __copy_skb_header() by a single memset(),
because copying all these bits one by one is not really clever.

And then, adding a test in fast path (ip_rcv_finish()) is really not
nice.

I am not convinced this patch is the right way to solve the problem.



--
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