netdev - Re: possible kernel oops from user MSS

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: <20101122.185959.193707855.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:59:59 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	lyw@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	mzhang@...sta.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: possible kernel oops from user MSS

From: Li Yewang <lyw@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:48:46 +0800

> 
> 
> At 2010-11-13 7:26, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Min Zhang<mzhang@...sta.com>
>> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:59:58 -0800
>>
>>> Regarding commit 7a1abd08d52fdeddb3e9a5a33f2f15cc6a5674d2 ("tcp:
>>> Increase TCP_MAXSEG socket option minimum"). What is the reason
>>> TCP_MAXSEG minimum be 64? Isn't the exact be 40 which is
>>> TCPOLEN_MD5SIG_ALIGNED(20) + TCPOLEN_TSTAMP_ALIGNED(12) + 8?
>>>
>>> Or is it better to use TCP_MIN_MSS from tcp.h:
>>>
>>> /* Minimal accepted MSS. It is (60+60+8) - (20+20). */
>>> #define TCP_MIN_MSS        88U
>>
>> I suppose TCP_MIN_MSS would be better to use, I'll make that
>> change, thanks.
> 
>   David, do you have plan to fix this bug using TCP_MIN_MSS?

I will, it's deep in my backlog and pretty low priority right now.
--
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