[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8873761550853329@myt6-67cd1de25d8a.qloud-c.yandex.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:35:29 +0300
From: Nazarov Sergey <s-nazarov@...dex.ru>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "paul@...l-moore.com" <paul@...l-moore.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"kuznet@....inr.ac.ru" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NETWORKING: avoid use IPCB in cipso_v4_error
I tried to analyze the cases of using icmp_send in kernel. It indirectly used by many protocols:
ARP, IP, UDP, Netfilter, IPVS, IPIP, GRE over IP, CLIP, XFRM, CIPSOv4.
Different IP tunnels and XFRM operating directly over IP layer and if using own skb->cb data,
having IP header data in front of it. CLIP uses icmp_send for packets from arp queue only.
So, If I right, only TCP layer moves IP header data and only CIPSOv4 operates on both IP and
TCP layers now.
19.02.2019, 04:25, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>:
> From: Nazarov Sergey <s-nazarov@...dex.ru>
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:39:11 +0300
>
>> I think, it would not be a good solution, if I will analyze all
>> subsystems using icmp_send, because I do not have enough knowledge
>> for this. I propose to add a new function, for example,
>> ismp_send_safe, something like that:
>
> Please don't do this.
>
> Solve the problem properly by auditing each case, there aren't a lot and
> it is not too difficult to see the upcall sites.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists