netdev - Re: [PATCH] packet: Allow packets with only a header (but no payload)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <563DF875.7090104@openwrt.org>
Date:	Sat, 7 Nov 2015 14:11:17 +0100
From:	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>
To:	Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Cc:	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, johann.baudy@...-log.net,
	paulus@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] packet: Allow packets with only a header (but no payload)

On 2015-07-31 00:15, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com> wrote:
>> Martin, to return to your initial statement that PPPoE PADI packets can
>> have a zero payload: the PPPoE RFC states that PADI packets "MUST
>> contain exactly one TAG of TAG_TYPE Service-Name, indicating the
>> service the Host is requesting, and any number of other TAG types."
>> (RFC 2516, 5.1). Is the observed behavior (no payload) perhaps
>> incorrect?
> As far as I can see you are right, but the real world seems to be different.
> My ISP for example lists the PPPoE connection settings, but they are
> nowhere mentioning the "service name".
> 
> I have also re-read pppd's source code again and that seems to confirm
> what you are reading in the RFC: Leaving the service name away makes
> seems to violate the RFC, but pppd still accepts those configurations.
> 
>> Even if it is, if this is breaking established userspace expectations,
>> we should look into it. Ethernet specifies a minimum payload size of
>> 46 on the wire, but perhaps that is handled with padding, so that
>> 0 length should be valid within the stack. Also, there may be other
>> valid uses of 0 length payload on top of link layers that are not Ethernet.
> Good catch. I would also like to note that the documentation for
> "hard_header_len" describes it as "Hardware header length". When the
> purpose of this field we should check whether the documentation should
> be updated to "Minimum hardware header length" -> that would mean the
> condition has to be a "len < hard_header_len" instead of a "len <=
> hard_header_len" (as it is now).
> 
> PS: I have also added the pppd maintainer (Paul Mackerras) to this
> thread because I think he should know about this issue (and he can
> probably provide more details if required).
> As a quick summary for him: linux  >= 3.19 rejects PADI packets when
> no service name is configured.
Any news on this? Users are complaining about this regression:
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/20707

- Felix
--
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