netdev - Re: IPv4 tunnels: why IP-IP and SIT enforce DF bit, but GRE does not?

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: <20151201.120851.2159228528635979581.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 01 Dec 2015 12:08:51 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc:	konstantin@...myak.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pshelar@...ira.com
Subject: Re: IPv4 tunnels: why IP-IP and SIT enforce DF bit, but GRE does
 not?

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:30:55 +0100

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015, at 14:20, Konstantin Shemyak wrote:
>> My point was not to question its feasibility, but to make it similar 
>> across GRE, IP-IP and SIT tunnels.
> 
> I would send a patch to add it again if Parvin didn't have good reasons
> to remove it.

The tunnel code consolidation created a lot of regressions and subtle
unintended changes in behavior between the different tunnel types.

This DF bit issue is just yet another example of that.

I'm really disappointed at how many bugs and problems were introduced
by those changes.
--
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