netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Fix the pmtu path for connected UDP socket

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, 28 Mar 2016 15:39:42 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:	Wei Wang <tracywwnj@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Fix the pmtu path for connected UDP socket

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:55:27PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>>  void ip6_sk_update_pmtu(struct sk_buff *skb, struct sock *sk, __be32 mtu)
>>  {
>> +     struct dst_entry *odst;
>> +
>> +     odst = sk_dst_get(sk);
>> +
>>       ip6_update_pmtu(skb, sock_net(sk), mtu,
>>                       sk->sk_bound_dev_if, sk->sk_mark);
>> +
>> +     if (odst && !odst->error &&
>> +         !ip6_dst_check(odst, inet6_sk(sk)->dst_cookie)) {
>> +             struct dst_entry *ndst;
>> +             struct flowi6 fl6;
>> +
>> +             build_skb_flow_key(&fl6, skb, sock_net(sk),
>> +                                sk->sk_bound_dev_if, sk->sk_mark);
>> +             ndst = ip6_route_output(sock_net(sk), NULL, &fl6);
>> +             if (!ndst->error)
>> +                     ip6_dst_store(sk, ndst, NULL, NULL);
> oops...missed:
>                 else
>                         dst_release(ndst);


Can you send an updated patch for review? Since you have a test case
while I didn't.

Also,

1) I think you need to check obsolete before update? There is no
reason to update an obsoleted dst?

2) Not sure if we need to update dst or dst->path here, I guess the later
counts in xfrm case therefore more correct.

Thanks.