netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: RST: binding oif to iif for tcp v4

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: <1328304719.2480.5.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:31:59 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Shawn Lu <shawn.lu@...csson.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, xiaoclu@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: RST: binding oif to iif for tcp v4

Le vendredi 03 février 2012 à 12:16 -0800, Shawn Lu a écrit :
> Binding RST packet outgoing interface to incomming interface
> for tcp v4. This has few benefits:
> 1. tcp_v6_send_reset already did that.

I dont think so. ipv6 makes no special provision for RST.

> 2. This helps tcp connect with SO_BINDTODEVICE set. When connection
> is lost, we still able to sending out RST using same interface.

I dont understand this.

> 3. limit RST traffic in ingress interface reduce the impact of
> RST attack.
> 

I dont understand this.

Me confused.

Why RST are special and should bypass/force routing decisions ?

This is going to break some setups.


--
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