[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2993fe74-a4d3-55ea-c600-ade0f0ee3a02@windriver.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 18:07:47 +0800
From: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
<tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Qian Zhang <zhangqian-c@....cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tipc: check minimum bearer MTU
>>
>> For UDP bearer, it seems insufficient for us to check MTU size only
>> when UDP bearer is enabled. Meanwhile, we should update MTU size for
>> UDP bearer with Path MTU discovery protocol once MTU size is changed
>> after bearer is enabled.
>
> I should admit I'm not that familiar with tipc. Do you mean updating
> b->mtu in response to PMTU updates of the route used for ub->ubsock?
Yes.
> The way I understand it, it would be certainly useful but it's not
> directly related to the security issue this patch addresses as if there
> are no updates, b->mtu cannot get too low and there is no risk of
> a buffer overflow. In other words, reflecting PMTU updates is something
> that can be IMHO left for later.
>
Agreed.
Regards,
Ying
> Michal Kubecek
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists