netdev - Re: [RFC] sctp/tcp: Question -- ICMPv4 length check (not) redundant?

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: <20080728174432.GA15892@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:44:32 +0100
From:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
To:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sctp/tcp: Question -- ICMPv4 length check (not)
	redundant?

| > In TCP, the 8 bytes happen to be enough for doing sequence number checks. Other
| > protocols have different header lengths and semantics. Thus doing the checks
| > at the transport layer makes more sense than in the ICMP handler.
| > 
| > RFC 1122 is almost 20 years old, from a time before IPcomp, SCTP, or DCCP.
| 
| So the suggestion really is then to remove the length check icmp_unreach()?
| 
Yes, but there are a large number of handlers in which the check is absent
(TCPv4, SCTPv4 and DCCP are exceptions). This would need to be added.

The ipv6/icmp.c code agrees with your suggestion of using 8 bytes as
lower bound.

I did not want to jump to the conclusion of writing a patch, since there are
more complex uses of ICMP (such as in a nested tunnel, perhaps with IPsec).
This needs to be understood.

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