netdev - Re: [PATCH -next, V3 0/2] net: force refragmentation for DF reassembed skbs

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: <20150522.150310.2248217318352290500.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 15:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	fw@...len.de
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next, V3 0/2] net: force refragmentation for DF
 reassembed skbs

From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:32:49 +0200

> IP (ttl 64, id 12345, offset 0, flags [+, DF], proto UDP (17), length 1204)
>     192.168.7.1.42 > 10.23.42.2.42: UDP, length 1400
> IP (ttl 64, id 12345, offset 1184, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 244)
>     192.168.7.1 > 10.23.42.2: ip-proto-17

I almost consider a fragment with DF set an oxymoron.

How does this happen?

DF is a mechanism for PMTU discovery.  Therefore it is the end nodes
which set DF on packets before fragmentation can even take place.
Since DF is set initially, the logical consequence is that the packet
cannot be legally fragmented along the way.

Are tunnels doing something to create this situation?
--
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