netdev - Re: [RFC] wireless, ipv4, ipv6: drop GTK-protected unicast IP packets

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: <1385039307.14273.4.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Date:	Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:08:27 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jouni Malinen <jouni@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] wireless, ipv4, ipv6: drop GTK-protected unicast IP
 packets

On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 14:05 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:

> @@ -498,7 +500,8 @@ struct sk_buff {
>  	 * headers if needed
>  	 */
>  	__u8			encapsulation:1;
> -	/* 7/9 bit hole (depending on ndisc_nodetype presence) */
> +	__u8			drop_unicast:1;

The obvious question is here, and for IPv4/IPv6 - should the wireless
stack be responsible for doing this instead?

The upside of this approach as-is is that all other protocols can easily
be extended to do this and no protocol-specific code is needed in
wireless; the downside is that it clobbers all protocol code. Thoughts?

johannes

--
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