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: <542C3D28.6050705@oracle.com>
Date:	Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:43:04 -0400
From:	David L Stevens <david.stevens@...cle.com>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...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 01:32 PM, Rick Jones wrote:

> It would be an added statistic for "ignored" UDP multicast datagrams, incremented instead of UDP_MIB_NOPORTS.  "UDP_MIB_IGNOREDMULTI" if you will.
> 
> Similar in concept to what HP-UX NIC drivers would increment when they received a frame for which there was no bound protocol - "inbound unknown protocols" but not a drop
> http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/chap1_0130428167/elementLinks/01fig16.gif

I guess I'm ok with that.

Ideally, it wouldn't be affected by running a sniffer, so I think best would be to increment
NOPORTS when someone has joined the group on the interface and IGNOREDMULTI when nobody has,
but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to check. So I'm good with that, or IGNOREDMULTI all
the time.

								+-DLS

--
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