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]

Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:56:49 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
Cc:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sctp/tcp: Question -- ICMPv4 length check (not) redundant?

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:27:46PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> 
> So the suggestion really is then to remove the length check icmp_unreach()?

Yes.

> Because as it stands right now, the protocol error handler will not be invoked
> if we don't have the iphdr + 8 bytes worth of data.  That's is actually a requirement
> from the ICMP rfc 792.

That requirement only makes sense if the original packet has at
least 8 bytes of payload.  Since the RFC doesn't talk about
padding in case it doesn't have 8 byte, the behaviour in that
case is clearly undefined.

As far as Linux is concerned, we've never done padding if there
is less than 8 bytes of payload.  So as such we must be prepared
to deal with that on the input side as well.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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