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  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]
Date:	Mon, 12 May 2014 23:49:30 +0930
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@....org>,
	Bart De Schuymer <bdschuym@...dora.be>
CC:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bad checksum on bridge with IP options

On 12/05/14 23:21, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Agree, bridge should not alter ip options.

It would be easy to remove the call to ip_options_compile instead of 
recalculating checksum after it, but I suspect there may be good reasons 
why this, too, would be wrong.  The source file is br_netfilter.c, 
suggesting that a change in options is needed in some situations.

In the situation that caught my attention, it obviously does it wrong 
(probably didn't add 0.0.0.0 to the route record, probably just 
incremented the pointer; and seriously damaged the timestamps as well as 
an incremented pointer without actually adding a value.)

I'm in a quandary.

Is it possible that bridge has exceeded it's mandate?  I can't find it 
now, but I saw a comment that it just copies packets unchanged. I think 
it's use now goes further than that would allow.

I welcome words of advice.
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists