netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next] ipv4: introduce ip_dst_mtu_secure and protect forwarding path against pmtu spoofing

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: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B74BF@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:21:10 -0000
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	<johnwheffner@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] ipv4: introduce ip_dst_mtu_secure and protect forwarding path against pmtu spoofing

> No end host should have rp_filter on.  It unnecessarily makes our
> routing lookups much more expensive for zero gain on an end host.  But
> people convinced the distributions that turning it on everywhere by
> default was a good idea and it stuck.

Yes I spent a long time trying to get asymmetric routing within a
subnet working [1]. I didn't expect anything on the ingress side
would discard the packets - especially with the 'host based' IP
address scheme that linux uses.

	David

[1] I wanted a netperf RR test to send on one interface and
receive on another so that I could see whether the additional
delays were on the tx or rx side.

--
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