netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] ipv4: IP_TOS and IP_TTL can be specified as ancillary data

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: <521DAD30.1010903@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:56:32 +0200
From:	Francesco Fusco <ffusco@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] ipv4: IP_TOS and IP_TTL can be specified
 as ancillary data

On 08/27/2013 08:56 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Francesco Fusco <ffusco@...hat.com>
> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:19:32 +0200
>
>>    - changed the icmp_cookie ttl field from __s16 to __u8.
>>      A value of 0 means that the TTL has not been specified
>
> Sorry, I have to ask you to change the ttl field type back to __s16
> and use "-1" to mean not-specified.
>
> Zero is a valid TTL setting and it means to not allow the
> packet to leave this host.

Actually setsockopt() does not allow a TTL value of zero:

 From net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c::do_ip_setsockopt()
-----
case IP_TTL:
                 if (optlen < 1)
                         goto e_inval;
                 if (val != -1 && (val < 1 || val > 255))
                         goto e_inval;
                 inet->uc_ttl = val;
                 break;
---------

To make my patch consistent with the behavior of setsockopt() I also
do not accept a TTL of zero in the ancillary data:
+	if (val < 1 || val > 255)
+		return -EINVAL;

Therefore, if icmp_cookie->ttl has a value of 0, that could only mean
that the user has not specified the TTL.

I agree that could be somehow confusing to consider 0 as a non specified
TTL, and that -1 would be more clear. However, it seems to me that we 
end up using 1 more byte in a struct that is stored on the stack for
readability reasons.

> Please make this change and resubmit, thanks.

I can change the code as you requested despite what I wrote above,
let me know.

Thanks,
Francesco



--
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