netdev - Re: [RFC] IP_MAX

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: <50D4AF72.2020101@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:50:26 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] IP_MAX_MTU value

On 12/21/2012 10:34 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 10:19 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> If you go beyond the protocol limit of an IPv4 datagram, won't it be
>> necessary to  start being a bit more conditional on IPv4 vs IPv6?
>>
>
> This IP_MAX_MTU is really an IPv4 thing (static to net/ipv4/route.c)

OK. Doesn't this:

         if (mtu > IP_MAX_MTU)
                 mtu = IP_MAX_MTU;

mean it should be OK to go to 0xFFFF but not 0x10000?  Since 65535 is 
the limit of an IPv4 datagram and so I would think would be the maximum 
MTU for an IPv4 interface.

rick
--
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