netdev - Re: [RFC, PATCH]: Pass link level header from/to PPP interface

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: <ygfhcfu85vt.fsf@janus.isnogud.escape.de>
Date:	27 Feb 2008 22:08:06 +0100
From:	Urs Thuermann <urs@...ogud.escape.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH]: Pass link level header from/to PPP interface

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:

> When given a specific device, libpcap uses SOCK_RAW.

I don't think this is completely true for PPP interfaces.  If you do a
pcap_open_live() on interface "any", libpcap opens a PF_PACKET/SOCK_DGRAM
socket.  Otherwise, on a specific device a SOCK_RAW is opened like you
write but libpcap asks with SIOCGIFHWADDR for the ARPHRD_* type of the
interface.  In case of PPP libpcap closes the socket and opens a new
socket with SOCK_DGRAM to capture packets on.  Here's a strace showing
this behavior:

    execve("./pcap", ["./pcap", "ppp0"], [/* 34 vars */]) = 0
    brk(0)                                  = 0x8068f5c
    ...
    socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, 768)        = 3
    ioctl(3, SIOCGIFINDEX, {ifr_name="lo", ifr_index=1}) = 0
    ioctl(3, SIOCGIFHWADDR, {ifr_name="ppp0", ifr_hwaddr=00:00:00:00:00:00}) = 0
    close(3)                                = 0
    socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_DGRAM, 768)      = 3
    ioctl(3, SIOCGIFINDEX, {ifr_name="ppp0", ifr_index=22}) = 0
    bind(3, {sa_family=AF_PACKET, proto=0x03, if22, pkttype=PACKET_HOST, addr(0)={0, }, 20) = 0
    ...

> I spent some time seriously considering this change but I
> can't because it really can potentially break so much stuff.

Thanks for your time on this.  But AFAICS, the patch doesn't break
libpcap.  I have it running here on 2.4 and 2.6 kernels for some weeks
now with PPPoE.  tcpdump and wireshark run without problems since they
use libpcap and for SOCK_DGRAM there is no difference.

My own simple packet sniffer is not libpcap based and takes advantage of
the patch.  Other programs using PF_PACKET I run here are dhcpd,
dhclient, rarpd, pppoe-server, and pppoe, but all of these use
SOCK_DGRAM or SOCK_PACKET and/or work on Ethernet interfaces.

I don't think the patch would break much stuff.

urs
--
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