netdev - Re: IPv6 extension header privileges

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: <20160521015604.GD2452@oracle.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 May 2016 21:56:04 -0400
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 extension header privileges

On (05/21/16 02:20), Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> 
> There are some options inherently protocol depending like the jumbo
> payload option, which should be under control of the kernel, or the
> router alert option for igmp, which causes packets to be steered towards
> the slow/software path of routers, which can be used for DoS attacks.
> 
> Setting CALIPSO options in IPv6 on packets as users would defeat the
> whole CALIPSO model, etc.
> 
> The RFC3542 requires at least some of the options in dst/hop-by-hop

"requires" is a strong word. 3542 declares it as a  "may" (lower case).
The only thing required strongly is IPV6_NEXTHOP itself.

I suspect 3542 was written at a time when hbh and dst opt were loosely
defined and the "may" is just a place-holder (i.e., it's not even a MAY)

> 
> AFAIK people worried about the parsing overhead and thus decided to
> block it for ordinary users.

That's probably more likely, esp for hbh options. It may also be 
interesting to find out what BSD does in these cases. 

--Sowmini