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]

Date:	Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:16:20 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:22:27 +0200
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:

> +	/* RFC 1122 3.3.6:
> +	 *
> +	 *   When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address,
> +	 *   the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP
> +	 *   multicast address.
> +	 *
> +	 *   A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via
> +	 *   a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify
> +	 *   an IP multicast or broadcast destination address.
> +	 *
> +	 * We also do this for link-layer multicast.
> +	 */
> +	if ((skb->pkt_type == PACKET_BROADCAST ||
> +	     skb->pkt_type == PACKET_MULTICAST) &&
> +	    res.type != RTN_BROADCAST)
> +		goto e_inval;
> +

I think you need to all multicast packet but not broadcast.
The RFC does not specify that you should drop link-layer multicast to a unicast
address. There are several clustering products use that.
--
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