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:	Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:26:00 -0600
From:	Brent Cook <bcook@...akingpoint.com>
To:	Michał Mirosław <mirqus@...il.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Phil Karn <karn@...q.net>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	<kaber@...sh.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Off-by-one error in net/8021q/vlan.c

On Wednesday 16 February 2011 12:41:34 Michał Mirosław wrote:
> 2011/2/16 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> > Le mercredi 16 février 2011 à 08:28 -0800, Phil Karn a écrit :
> >> On 2/16/11 8:10 AM, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Phil Karn <karn@...q.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 2/16/11 4:51 AM, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Phil Karn <karn@...q.net> wrote:
> >> >>>> The range check on vlan_id in register_vlan_device is off by one, and it
> >> >>>> prevents the creation of a vlan interface for vlan ID 4095. (OSX allows
> >> >>>> this, I checked.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Then OSX should fix their code. 4095 is reserved.
> >> >> If it's reserved, then it's up to the user to reserve it.
> >> > No.
> >> > See:
> >> > http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1Q-2005.pdf
> >> Well, then I guess we all know better than the user. That's the Windows
> >> Way...no, wait, I thought this is Linux.
> >>
> >> The fact is that I did encounter a misconfigured switch using vlan 4095,
> >> and because of this off-by-one error I was unable to talk to it and fix it.
> >>
> >> I was hoping I wouldn't have to patch every new kernel I install.
> > You can use an OSX gateway ;)
> >
> > If we allow ID 4095, then some users will complain we violate rules.
> >
> > Really you cannot push this patch in official kernel only to ease your
> > life ;)
> 
> The idea is that you don't have to use ID 4095 and if you don't -
> nothing's broken by just allowing it. The same goes with ID 0 - it's
> defined to be 802.1p packet, but people do use it as normal VLAN
> (especially with hardware that can cope with only small number of
> VLANs at once).
> 
> Allowing it but with a big fat warning in logs is even better: "You
> want your network broken? Sure, can do, but you have been warned."
> 

On the other end of the spectrum, vconfig warns for vlan 1:

bcook@...ok-box:~$ sudo vconfig add eth0 1
Added VLAN with VID == 1 to IF -:eth0:-
WARNING:  VLAN 1 does not work with many switches,
consider another number if you have problems.
bcook@...ok-box:~$ sudo vconfig add eth0 4095
ERROR: trying to add VLAN #4095 to IF -:eth0:-  error: Numerical result out of range
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ