netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Prevent UDP tunnels from operating on garbage socket

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: <20150407.012939.305450025729368407.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 01:29:39 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tom@...bertland.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	pablo@...filter.org, hannes@...essinduktion.org, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Prevent UDP tunnels from operating on garbage
 socket

From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 21:45:45 -0700

> I guess this is where I'm confused. We can send just about anything
> over GRE also, but have never needed a transmit socket for that. Is
> UDP encapsulation so different, or is GRE equally broken also? Also,
> will we need to add the socket to FOU and GUE then?

The situation is that if we have a socket we should use it.  More
information and context is better than less.

And making the stack more aware of what context exists happens to fix
a crash too.

Pablo has told me also that extending the output path signature in
this way helps work he is doing too.
--
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