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  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:   Mon, 03 Apr 2017 13:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     parameswaran.r7@...il.com
Cc:     jchapman@...alix.com, kleptog@...na.org, nprachan@...cade.com,
        rshearma@...cade.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        sdietric@...cade.com, ciwillia@...cade.com, lboccass@...cade.com,
        dfawcus@...cade.com, bhong@...cade.com, jblunck@...cade.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead
 on a socket.

From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT)

> Can I take this to mean that we do need to factor in IP options in 
> the L2TP device MTU setup (i.e approach in the posted patch is okay)? 
> 
> If yes, please let me know if I can keep the socket IP option overhead 
> calculations in a generic function, or it would be better to move it back into 
> L2TP code? 

If the user creates and maintains this UDP socket, then yes we have to
account for potential IP options.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists