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: <1356116045.21834.7751.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:54:05 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] IP_MAX_MTU value

On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 10:50 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> 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.

Sure, I meant 0xFFFF and it is the value I used in my tests.

65536 is the current MTU of loopback device, and this can be used by
other protocols.



--
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