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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51451351.50508@linux-ipv6.org>
Date:	Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:50:25 +0900
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
CC:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next (V2, RESENT)] ipv6: Queue fragments per interface
 for multicast/link-local addresses.

Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> 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?

Will do.

> 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.

OK.

--yoshfuji

--
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