netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next (V2, RESENT)] ipv6: Queue fragments per interface for multicast/link-local addresses.

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: <20130316074745.GC24041@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:47:45 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next (V2, RESENT)] ipv6: Queue fragments per interface for multicast/link-local addresses.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 01:44:38AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> We should queue fragments for the same link-local address on
> different interfaces (e.g. fe80::1%eth0 and fe80::1%eth1) to the
> different queue, because of nature of addressing architecture.
> 
> Similarly, we should queue fragments for multicast on different
> interface to the different queue.  This is okay because
> application joins group on speicific interface, and multicast
> traffic is expected only on that interface.
> 
> CC: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
> CC: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
> CC: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>

I just found this patch while cleaning up my tree. I don't know its state
(netdev patchworks says RFC and netfilter patchworks still lists it as
new). However, I also do think that the per interface matching would be
the right thing to do for multicast|linklocal fragments. Perhaps this patch
should be resend?

Yoshifuji, do you think we should also implement RFC 3168 5.3 ECN
fragmentation protection in reassembly.c? I think it should be
straightforward because it is already implemented for ipv4 and the
relevant bits just need to be moved to inet_fragment.c and become a bit
more generalized.

Thanks,

  Hannes

--
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