[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1476981609.2709.56.camel@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:40:09 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>, Ying Xue <ying.xue0@...il.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Qian Zhang <zhangqian-c@....cn>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tipc: Guard against tiny MTU in tipc_msg_build()
On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 14:51 +0000, Jon Maloy wrote:
[...]
> > At this point we're about to copy INT_H_SIZE + mhsz bytes into the
> > first fragment. If that's already limited to be less than or equal to
> > MAX_H_SIZE, comparing with MAX_H_SIZE would be fine. But if MAX_H_SIZE
> > is the maximum value of mhsz, that won't be good enough.
>
>
> MAX_H_SIZE is 60 bytes, but in practice you will never see an mhsz larger than the biggest header we are actually using, which is MCAST_H_SIZE (==44 bytes).
> INT_H_SIZE is 40 bytes, so you are in reality testing for whether we have an mtu < 84 bytes.
> You won't find any interfaces or protocols that come even close to this limitation, so to me this test is redundant.
But I can easily create such an interface:
$ unshare -n -U -r
# ip l set lo mtu 1
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists