netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: ip/tnl: Set iph->id only when don't fragment is not set

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]

Message-Id: <20191125.144139.1331751213975518867.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:41:39 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     oliver.peter.herms@...il.com
Cc:     yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ip/tnl: Set iph->id only when don't fragment
 is not set

From: Oliver Herms <oliver.peter.herms@...il.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:24:18 +0100

> From RFC 6864 "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field" section 4.1:

Just reading the abstract of this RFC I cannot take it seriously:

	This document updates the specification of the IPv4 ID field
	in RFCs 791, 1122, and 2003 to more closely reflect current
	practice...

"more closely reflect current practice" ?!?!

That statement is a joke right?

Linux generates the bulk of the traffic on the internet and we've had
the current behavior of the ID field for decades.

Therefore, I don't think even the premise of this document is valid.

These are all red flags to me, and I think we should keep the current
behavior.

I'm not applying your patch, sorry.