netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm6: handling fragment

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20081101.211221.67297722.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	nicolas.dichtel@....6wind.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm6: handling fragment

From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@....6wind.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:18:01 +0100

> RFC4301 Section 7.1 says:
> 
> "7.1.  Tunnel Mode SAs that Carry Initial and Non-Initial Fragments
> 
>      All implementations MUST support tunnel mode SAs that are configured
>      to pass traffic without regard to port field (or ICMP type/code or
>      Mobility Header type) values.  If the SA will carry traffic for
>      specified protocols, the selector set for the SA MUST specify the
>      port fields (or ICMP type/code or Mobility Header type) as ANY.  An
>      SA defined in this fashion will carry all traffic including initial
>      and non-initial fragments for the indicated Local/Remote addresses
>      and specified Next Layer protocol(s)."
> 
> But for IPv6, fragment is treated as a protocol. Would the following patch be acceptable to catch protocol transported in fragmented packet?
> In IPv4, there is no problem.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>

This seems good, I've applied this to net-next-2.6

Thanks.
--
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