linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net/ipv4: push IP options to CB in ip

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]

Message-Id: <20100901.144658.135972233.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	bandan.das@...atus.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net/ipv4: push IP options to CB in
 ip_fragment

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:20:31 +0200

> We could have a padding in front of struct br_input_skb_cb to make sure
> we dont overwrite IP (4|6) CB in bridge ?
> 
> Something like this untested patch :

This will not help Brandan's case.

His packets are coming straight from TUN/TAP.  They did not live in
the IP stack at all before hitting the bridge and then heading to
ip_fragment().

Therefore I'm inclined to agree with Herbert that we need to parse the
options explicitly before invoke ip_fragment().  We must call it with
an SKB in the state it expects, and that means with options parsing
already performed.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/