netdev - Re: [PATCH] TCP: Add support for TCP Stealth

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 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:	Thu, 1 Jan 2015 11:06:46 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	Julian Kirsch <kirschju@....in.tum.de>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Christian Grothoff <christian@...thoff.org>,
	Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@...elbaum.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP: Add support for TCP Stealth

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 22:54:59 +0100
Julian Kirsch <kirschju@....in.tum.de> wrote:

> +#ifdef CONFIG_TCP_STEALTH
> +/* Stealth TCP socket configuration */
> +	struct {
> +		#define TCP_STEALTH_MODE_AUTH		BIT(0)
> +		#define TCP_STEALTH_MODE_INTEGRITY	BIT(1)
> +		#define TCP_STEALTH_MODE_INTEGRITY_LEN	BIT(2)
> +		int mode;
> +		u8 secret[MD5_MESSAGE_BYTES];
> +		int integrity_len;
> +		u16 integrity_hash;
> +		struct skb_mstamp mstamp;
> +		bool saw_tsval;
> +	} stealth;
> +#endif

If you want a bitfield, why not use a bitfield for mode?
If you have to use masks, better to use u8 for mode.
Integrity length should be unsigned since obviously negative
values are not possible.

Rearrange structure to save space. Lots of holes here.
--
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