netdev - RE: [net-next] icmp: correct return value of icmp

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:   Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:09:07 +0800
From:   张胜举 <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:     "'Eric Dumazet'" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [net-next] icmp: correct return value of icmp_rcv()

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 10:18 PM
> To: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [net-next] icmp: correct return value of icmp_rcv()
> 
> On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 14:52 +0800, Zhang Shengju wrote:
> > Currently, icmp_rcv() always return zero on a packet delivery upcall.
> >
> > To make its behavior more compliant with the way this API should be
> > used, this patch changes this to let it return NET_RX_SUCCESS when the
> > packet is proper handled, and NET_RX_DROP otherwise.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/icmp.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/icmp.c b/net/ipv4/icmp.c index 691146a..f79d7a8
> > 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/icmp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/icmp.c
> > @@ -1047,12 +1047,12 @@ int icmp_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >
> >  	if (success)  {
> >  		consume_skb(skb);
> > -		return 0;
> > +		return NET_RX_SUCCESS;
> >  	}
> >
> >  drop:
> >  	kfree_skb(skb);
> > -	return 0;
> > +	return NET_RX_DROP;
> >  csum_error:
> >  	__ICMP_INC_STATS(net, ICMP_MIB_CSUMERRORS);
> >  error:
> 
> 
> I am curious, what external/visible effects do you expect from such a change ?
> 
> We now have a very precise monitoring of where packets are dropped
> (consume_skb()/kfree_skb())
> 
> 

I know that the return value is always ignored, I just to want to make it 
compliant with the way this API required like I said in the comment.

Thanks,