netdev - Re: Looking for a lost patch

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:	Mon, 18 May 2015 09:38:10 +0200
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Looking for a lost patch

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:47:11AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> So I am in the process of trying to do some work on VTI6 and in the
> process of doing so I am trying to setup an IPv4 VTI tunnel and I
> have come across what appears to be a lost patch.
> 
> So in commit a32452366b72 ("vti4: Don't count header length twice.")
> the following change was made:
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c b/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
> index 687ddef..cd62596 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
> @@ -349,7 +349,6 @@ static int vti_tunnel_init(struct net_device *dev)
>  	memcpy(dev->broadcast, &iph->daddr, 4);
> 
>  	dev->type		= ARPHRD_TUNNEL;
> -	dev->hard_header_len	= LL_MAX_HEADER + sizeof(struct iphdr);
>  	dev->mtu		= ETH_DATA_LEN;
>  	dev->flags		= IFF_NOARP;
>  	dev->iflink		= 0;
> 
> However in commit f895f0cfbb77 ("Merge branch 'master' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/klassert/ipsec") the
> change appears to have been undone as a result of a merge commit.
> 
> I'm just wondering which is correct.  Should the hard_header_len be
> set or unset in vti_tunnel_init?  I ask because I have two kernels
> and one has the patch and one does not and I am seeing an MTU of
> 1332 for a VTI tunnel without, and 1480 for a VTI tunnel with.

A MTU of 1332 is definitively wrong. Actually I think a vti
tunnel can have a MTU of 1500 because xfrm cares to calculate
a PMTU based on the used states. The MTU of 1480 is because
the generic ip_tunnel_bind_dev() assumes that an ip tunnel
has always the overhead of an additional ip header. On IPsec
this header is included in the PMTU calculation.
--
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