netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/5] ipv4: Kill ip_rt_frag

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: <20120614053529.GP27795@secunet.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:35:29 +0200
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ipv4: Kill ip_rt_frag_needed().

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 03:22:28AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:07:09 +0200
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 02:42:25AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:01:52 +0200
> >> 
> >> > I think an application that sets IP_PMTUDISC_WANT explicitly will
> >> > rely on the fact that the kernel does pmtu discovery. Changing
> >> > the socket setting to IP_PMTUDISC_DONT the first time we get into
> >> > trouble makes IP_PMTUDISC_WANT pointless for udp and raw sockets.
> >> 
> >> How so?
> >> 
> >> We are mimicking exactly what would happen if we had just created
> >> a new routing cache entry when the application openned the socket.
> >> 
> >> There is no behavioral difference whatsoever.
> >> 
> >> We absolutely do perform PMTU discovery, the first large packet
> >> will trigger it.  And then, as if we had lowered the PMTU in
> >> the routing cache entry, we will stop setting DF in the packets.
> > 
> > Maybe I missunderstood what you meant. I thought that you don't want
> > to update the pmtu cache informations at all on udp and raw.
> > If we update the pmtu cache informations with first large packet,
> > I agree absolutely.
> 
> We don't update the PMTU.
> 
> But we behave as if we did.
> 
> The only effect the IP_PMTUDISC_* values have is in deciding whether
> to set the DF flag in the outgoing packets.

With your patch applied, we stop setting the DF bit after we received
a 'need to frag' ICMP message, but we don't fragment. We send the packets
out unfragmented. Before we removed ip_rt_frag_needed(), we did the
fragmentation according to the pmtu informations we got from the icmp
message. Now the router with the low mtu has to do the fragmentation.

--
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