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:	Sat, 21 May 2016 17:55:59 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Missing INET6_PROTO_FINAL in l2tp_ip6_protocol?

On 21.05.2016 14:50, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> inet6_protocol's INET6_PROTO_FINAL flag denotes handler is expected not
> to request resubmission for local delivery.
> 
> For an INET6_PROTO_FINAL handler, the following actions gets executed
> prior delivery, in ip6_input_finish:
> 
> 			nf_reset(skb);
> 
> 			skb_postpull_rcsum(skb, skb_network_header(skb),
> 					   skb_network_header_len(skb));
> 
> For some reason, l2tp_ip6_protocol handler is NOT marked as
> INET6_PROTO_FINAL. Probably an oversight.
> 
> Since 'l2tp_ip6_recv' never results in a resubmission, the above actions
> are not applied to skbs passed to l2tp_ip6.
> 
> Any reason why l2tp_ip6_protocol should NOT be marked INET6_PROTO_FINAL?

I don't see any specific reason why it shouldn't be a INET6_PROTO_FINAL.
Anyway, receive path of L2TPv3 without UDP encapsulation doesn't deal
with checksums anyway, as far as I know.

> What's the consequences not executing the above actions for l2tp_ip6
> packets?

Probably not a whole lot in this case.

Bye,
Hannes

Powered by blists - more mailing lists