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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:53:03 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net, linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, Shlomo Pongratz <shlomop@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] IB/ipoib: fix GRO merge failure for IPoIB originated TCP streams Le lundi 30 janvier 2012 à 19:18 +1100, Herbert Xu a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:04:32AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > Hmm, do we really need to compare ether header, thats the question. > > I think we do. As otherwise macvlan would break. > Thats the theory yes, but practically ? Really, GRO can merge two TCP frames given they match everything needed, exactly as our TCP stack would do in the end. What could be a normal workload where this mismatch of two different tcp flows could happen with macvlan or any kind of devices ? If this is an attack, TCP will merge the frames anyway on the same socket. Or should we add checks in TCP stack, in case GRO is off ? -- 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