netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] ipv6: sr: fix get_srh() to comply with IPv6 standard "RFC 8200"

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: <20170830.151947.1646224839367558973.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     amsalam20@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, david.lebrun@...ouvain.be
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipv6: sr: fix get_srh() to comply with IPv6
 standard "RFC 8200"

From: Ahmed Abdelsalam <amsalam20@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:50:37 +0200

> IPv6 packet may carry more than one extension header, and IPv6 nodes must
> accept and attempt to process extension headers in any order and occurring
> any number of times in the same packet. Hence, there should be no
> assumption that Segment Routing extension header is to appear immediately
> after the IPv6 header.
> 
> Moreover, section 4.1 of RFC 8200 gives a recommendation on the order of
> appearance of those extension headers within an IPv6 packet. According to
> this recommendation, Segment Routing extension header should appear after
> Hop-by-Hop and Destination Options headers (if they present).
> 
> This patch fixes the get_srh(), so it gets the segment routing header
> regardless of its position in the chain of the extension headers in IPv6
> packet, and makes sure that the IPv6 routing extension header is of Type 4.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ahmed Abdelsalam <amsalam20@...il.com>

Applied.