netdev - Re: [RFC] ipv4: support for request type gratuitous ARP

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:	Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:21:05 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	opurdila@...acom.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ipv4: support for request type gratuitous ARP

From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:04:44 +0200

> 
> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
> ---
> 
> I've noticed that even though we currently support response type gratuitous ARP
> [response type, source mac, dest mac, source IP, source IP] *with a clean ARP table*
> we do not support the request type [request type, source mac, ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, source IP, source IP].

Please don't submit your patches in this manner.

All of these relevant, interesting, details belong in the commit
message.  But any text you place aftr the "---" line will be omitted
from the commit message when your patch is applied by automated GIT
tools.

I've done some research and I'm happy to apply your patch to
net-next-2.6 once it is submitted properly.

In fact we need to do some more research in this area because
generally we should more mimick the processing order of ARP prescribed
in the RFC.  In particular we should test the operation code lastly,
which would avoid these kinds of inconsistencies.

I'm worried though about security issues as well, as we make more the
acceptance more and more liberal, it becomes that much easier for
machines on the local network to poison ARP entries and use that to
either accept all traffic destined for a particular node or simply
deny that node access to the network.

In particular the kernel currently explicitly does not accept
unsolicited ARP, and this is controlled by the ARP_ACCEPT per-device
option.

	if (IPV4_DEVCONF_ALL(dev_net(dev), ARP_ACCEPT)) {
		/* Unsolicited ARP is not accepted by default.
		   It is possible, that this option should be enabled for some
		   devices (strip is candidate)
		 */
...
--
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