| 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: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:46:03 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: steffen.klassert@...unet.com Cc: alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com, alexander.duyck@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Looking for a lost patch From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:35:16 +0200 > We currently check if a socket is attached to a skb and do socket > error notification in this case, otherwise we do PMTU discovery if > the packet is too big. Looks like this socket check is not sufficient > if the packet is already transmitted through a tunnel device. > > I wonder if we have something to know that a packet was already > transmitted through a tunnel device. We could switch from socket > notification to PMTU discovery in this case. Generally speaking, we should not be orphaning the socket as it traverses through tunnels. In fact we have taken great pains to avoid doing this. See, for example, commits: 7026b1ddb6b8d4e6ee33dc2bd06c0ca8746fa7ab aad88724c9d54acb1a9737cb6069d8470fa85f74 b0270e91014dabfceaf37f5b40ad51bbf21a1302 Therefore what we always should do is retain the original socket ownership on the SKB, and layers that implement tunneling using sockets should pass the socket pointer through their output path(s) and never use skb->sk for this. -- 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