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, 3 Apr 2017 19:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:   "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:     parameswaran.r7@...il.com, 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.



Hi Dave,

Please see inline:

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, David Miller wrote:

> 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.
> 

Can I take this to mean that the patch in its present form is 
acceptable (patch currently accounts for IP options on the socket)? 
Please let me know if any further change is needed (I'll clean up the 
krobot reported errors after this).

thanks,

Ramkumar

Powered by blists - more mailing lists