netdev - RE: [PATCH] 1/1 net: packet: Keep 802.1Q VLAN tag in packet on SOCK_DGRAM socket

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

Message-ID: <001b01ca8d52$817d07d0$84771770$@name>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:28:03 +0100
From:	Milan Dadok <milan@...ok.name>
To:	'Patrick McHardy' <kaber@...sh.net>
CC:	<uaca@...mni.uv.es>, <johann.baudy@...-log.net>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] 1/1 net: packet: Keep 802.1Q VLAN tag in packet on SOCK_DGRAM socket - resend

Patrick McHardy wrote:

>Milan Dadok wrote:
>> Keep 802.1Q VLAN tag on non HW vlan accelerated network card received to SOCK_DGRAM socket.

>So not including the link layer header for SOCK_DGRAM sockets
>seems to be the intended behaviour.

>From my point of view i have question
Is 802.1Q encapsulation (or another type of encapsulation (IPSec?)) part of link level header or part of data packet?

Currently pseudo-header contains for OUTGOING packet on physical card (vlan10@...1)
a) HW accelarated network card  
protocol = ethertype IPv4 (0x0800)
tci = vlan number = 10
and data starts with 4500 0028

b) non HW accelerated network card 
protocol = ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100)
tci = 0
and data starts with 4500 0028
vlan tci and real protocol number (ARP,IPV4,IPV6) of data is lost 

And with more nested vlans it is getting worse
for example

vlan1010@...n10@...1

a) HW accelarated network card  
protocol = ethertype IPv4 (0x8100)
tci = 10
and data starts with 4500 0028

the 4 bytes of real packet 03f2 0800 is lost too

b) non HW accelarated network card  
4 words of data packet are lost ...

I have no problems with received packets, only outgoing packet have problem.
I think that out packet on SOCK_DGRAM sockets MUST BE in same format as in (received) packet on same interface.
Can we agree on this?

Milan



--
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