netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] IP: do not modify ingress packet IP option in ip_options

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170806.204949.1692038476128309810.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sun, 06 Aug 2017 20:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc:     pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] IP: do not modify ingress packet IP option in
 ip_options_echo()

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:47:42 -0400

> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> 
>> The red flag is that we are indexing 'start' with 'doffset' instead of
>> 'soffset'.
> 
> As Paolo pointed out, we should not put our own source address into the
> options array.
> 
> Do you have any idea why this code was added in the first place? I read
> through 2.0.33 code and even in context of this version, I couldn't
> figure that out.
> 
> Because it seems the code and update is dead anyways (besides
> incorrectly updating the ICMP reflected payload) I don't see any problem
> with removing this code. Do you?

Ok, now I'm convinced it's dead code.

Thanks for explaining.