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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1495731051.6465.100.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:50:51 -0700 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: p.fiterau-brostean@...ence.ru.nl, netdev@...r.kernel.org, F.Vaandrager@...ru.nl, ncardwell@...gle.com, ycheng@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: better validation of received ack sequences On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 12:48 -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> > Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:24:46 -0700 > > > Add a FLAG_NO_CHALLENGE_ACK so that tcp_rcv_state_process() > > can choose to send a challenge ACK and discard the packet instead > > of wrongly change socket state. > > Applied, but the tests end up being double-negatives so it might > have been easier to understand if the flag was a positive rather > than a negative value. I thought of this (and was in fact one of the patch I sent for internal review at Google), but this was changing all tcp_ack() calls instead of a single one ? Or maybe I am missing some easier way ? Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists