[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <488DC63A.3070309@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:14:34 -0400
From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, vladislav.yasevich@...com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sctp/tcp: Question -- ICMPv4 length check (not) redundant?
Ok, I seem to be confused here.
Gerrit Renker wrote:
> Thank you for the input. To sum up,
> * removing the per-protocol "ICMP payload too short" test and error counter
> increment as initially suggested does not seem right;
> * there are protocols such as IPComp which have a header length less than
> 8 bytes(and for these the test in the ICMP handler may be too much);
How so. Either 8 bytes will be there or not. If the 8 bytes aren't there,
we won't event make to the error handlers as it stands right now. As is, if
the ICMP packet doesn't contain the 8 bytes, it's too short according to ICMP spec.
> * there are protocols such as DCCP which need more than 8 bytes (at least 12)
> to interpret the ICMP message in a meaningful way;
If you need more then 8 bytes, that protocol needs to have a check for the extra
space. 8 byte are mandatory.
> * the requirement of having at least 8 bytes of transport-layer data available
> is stringent (afaik) only for ICMPv4, but not ICMPv6;
Splitting hairs here, but ICMPv6 is much more stringent. It forces you send as
close to 1280 byte error messages as possible.
> * only TCP/SCTP seem to have a proper per-protocol "payload too short" test;
Hm.. In the standard case, these do seem to be redundant since 8 bytes are required
by ICMP spec.
> * for DCCP, the work is actually doubled since
> - first the ICMP handler tests for minimally 8 bytes,
> - then the DCCP error handler tests for required minimum of 12 bytes.
DCCP and any other protocol that requires more error data should check for it in
its own handler. 8 bytes should be guaranteed to such handler.
What am I missing?
Thanks
-vlad
>
> Thus the patch at the begginning of this thread should be disregarded.
> It might be worth to consider per-protocol handlers.
>
> Gerrit
>
--
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