netdev - Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] Multicast packet reassembly can fail]

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1256764269.3153.494.camel@linux-1lbu>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:11:08 -0500
From:	Steve Chen <schen@...sta.com>
To:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, mhuth@...sta.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] Multicast packet reassembly can fail]

On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 13:22 -0700, David Stevens wrote:
> netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org wrote on 10/28/2009 11:25:39 AM:
> 
> > I see the point you are making.  I assumed, probably incorrectly, that
> > since eth0 and eth1 have different IP address.  I would get a complete
> > series of fragments for each interface.  Perhaps, I should really be
> > looking up the stack to see why packets were dropped.  Please correct me
> > if I'm mistaken.  The normal behavior is that application should be
> > receiving either 2 (scenario 1) or 1 (scenario 2) packets.
> 
> Steve,
>         If you didn't join the group on both interfaces, you won't receive
> two copies in the first place; the unjoined NIC won't deliver anything
> up the stack that isn't in it's multicast address filter.
> 
>  +-DLS

Thanks for the inputs.  I'll revisit the issue.

Steve

--
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