netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] udp: increment UDP_NO_PORTS when dropping unmatched multicasts

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: <542C2CAB.2030501@hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:32:43 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	David L Stevens <david.stevens@...cle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC:	davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] udp: increment UDP_NO_PORTS when dropping unmatched
 multicasts

On 10/01/2014 08:54 AM, David L Stevens wrote:
> I think this would have the unpleasant side-effect of incrementing a drop
> stat when we have not joined a multicast group that has UDP traffic, but the
> interface is in promiscuous mode. Also, false positives for the multicast
> address filter.
>
> Multicast address filters are not perfect matches, so it is "normal" to receive
> multicasts and broadcasts that are not addressed to our host. I'm not sure those
> should count as "noports" any more than traffic addressed to someone else's IP
> address if we're in promiscuous mode should.
>
> In the multicast case, it would really only make sense if we have actually joined
> the group it's addressed to.

Do you think an "ignored" statistic would be appropriate then?

rick
--
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