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  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:	Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:39:53 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <>
To:	David Stevens <>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <>,,
	Dave Jones <>,
	David Miller <>,,
	Julian Anastasov <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] udp: increment UDP_MIB_NOPORTS in mcast receive

On 10/03/2012 07:09 AM, David Stevens wrote:
> Of course. I think our difference is on the definition of
> "receives". I don't think a packet delivered locally due to
> promiscuous mode, broadcast or an imperfect multicast address filter
> match is a host UDP datagram receive. These packets really shouldn't
> be delivered to UDP at all; they are not addressed to this host (at
> least the non-broadcast, no-membership ones). A unicast UDP packet
> that doesn't match a local IP address does not increment this
> counter. A promiscuous mode multicast delivery is no different,
> except that the destination alone doesn't tell us if it is for us.
> I think counting these will primarily lead to administrators seeing
> non-zero drops and wasting their time trying to track them down.

I would tend to agree with David on this one. Or they might cease trying 
to track them down because they've gotten so many "false positives."

Isn't "meant for me" vs "not meant for me" at the heard of "drops" 
versus "discards?"

Once the packet is in the host, is it tagged in some way with "this was 
received as promiscuous/whatnot?"


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists