netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4/ipv6: check hop limit field on input

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: <4A24F143.8020006@dev.6wind.com>
Date:	Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:30:43 +0200
From:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4/ipv6: check hop limit field on input

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Nicolas Dichtel a écrit :
>> Le 01.06.2009 18:19, Florian Westphal a écrit :
>>> Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@....6wind.com> wrote:
>>>> when network stack receives a packet, it didn't check value of
>>>> ttl/hop limit
>>>> field. RFC indicates that a router must drop the packet if this field
>>>> is 0.
>>> Whats wrong with the checks in ip(6)_forward?
>> It's on forward, not on input. Router must not process it.
>> For example, if you try to ping (with ttl set to 0) the router, you will
>> receive a reply.
>>
> 
> You seem to mix requirements for routers and hosts. ttl processing
> is relevant for a gateway only, not for a host.
It's why I test the forwarding value in my patch. If forwarding is 
enable, it's a router.

> 
> (terminology : gateway / host in rfc 792)
> 
> I would say : who sent this ttl=0 packet at first ?
I prefere to ask: is this packet a "legal" packet?

> 
> ping -t 0 host
> ping: can't set unicast time-to-live: Invalid argument
> 
> So Linux is not able to do that, unless using tricks of course, or patching IP_TTL
> 
> BTW, sending ttl=0 packets to my cisco host (also a router but not relevant)
> is ok, it replies to this packets...
> 
> I wonder why Linux forbids sending ttl=0 packets, time to read again all these RFCs :)
I find a statement which tell to drop the packet but maybe I've missing 
something.


Nicolas
--
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