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]

Date:	Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:44:23 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Shawn Lu <shawn.lu@...csson.com>
Cc:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xiaoclu@...il.com" <xiaoclu@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] tcp: RST: binding oif to iif for tcp v4

Le vendredi 03 février 2012 à 16:43 -0500, Shawn Lu a écrit :
> See inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com] 
> 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.
> [shawn LU] it's in  tcp_v6_send_response line 899 of tcp_ipv6.c
>  fl6.flowi6_oif = inet6_iif(skb);
> 

tcp_v6_send_response() is used to send RST _and_ ACK

Its not reserved to RST. Thats why I said "no _special_ provision for
RST"

I repeat my question :

Why do you believe only RST should be handled in a different manner than
other TCP messages ?

If we decide to break asymmetric routing, we should do it completely and
document it.

It might already be broken for IPv6 and nobody cared / noticed.



--
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