netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: fix checking boundary of valid vlan id

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:	Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:12:58 +0100
From:	Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>
To:	Glen Turner <gdt@....id.au>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, akong@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix checking boundary of valid vlan id

Glen Turner <gdt@....id.au> writes:

> It may be a valid VLAN ID, or it may not. The meaning of FFF is
> reserved for vendor use, which doesn't preclude a vendor using it as a
> (non-interoperable) VLAN identifier. Many vendor's products treat 4096
> as they do any other VID.

I may be missing something vital, but 4096 is 0x1000 not 0xFFF? 4095 is
reserved and 0 means "treat as if the packet was untagged". 4096 is
impossible, there are only 12 bit and the encoding is AFAIK bog standard
binary.


/Benny
--
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