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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:31:04 +0100 From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> 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 06:24 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > 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. Yeah, that was a concern too. I'll do it entirely in the wireless stack instead I guess. At least it'll be hidden away inside the if that already does the group key check etc. Thanks. johannes -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists