netdev - Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast

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: <1409130792.2505.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:13:12 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	ja@....bg, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast

On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 10:54 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> > 	Is this place better, after checking for RTN_BROADCAST?
> > 
> > 	/* ARP link-layer broadcasts are acceptable here */
> > 	if ((skb->pkt_type == PACKET_BROADCAST ||
> > 	     skb->pkt_type == PACKET_MULTICAST) &&
> > 	    skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP))
> > 		goto e_inval;
> 
> Indeed, this would make ARP happier, but that still leaves open the
> issue of CLUSTERIP.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to determine that CLUSTERIP is active
here? Do we need to tag frames, or would a sysctl work?

Or should we go back to the drawing board and not make this change in
the IP stack at all? But parsing all the IP layer in the wireless stack
is really quite ugly as well.

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