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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20151205.130730.864484715672273318.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sat, 05 Dec 2015 13:07:30 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	konstantin@...myak.com
Cc:	hannes@...essinduktion.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	pshelar@...ira.com
Subject: Re: IPv4 tunnels: why IP-IP and SIT enforce DF bit, but GRE does
 not?

From: Konstantin Shemyak <konstantin@...myak.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 17:24:39 +0200

> On 01.12.2015 19:08, David Miller wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The patch is rather trivial; attached.

No signoff, so I can't apply this.

Also patches should be submitted as fresh mailing list postings,
with the patch inline rather than as an attachment.

Thanks.
--
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