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: <20191126.125156.2138813710312929109.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:51:56 -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: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 20:10:52 +0100

> Would you be willing to merge a patch that offers this?

No.

There is lots of precendence for incrementing the ID, look
at SLIP compression:

	deltaS = ntohs(ip->id) - ntohs(cs->cs_ip.id);
	if(deltaS != 1){
		cp = encode(cp,deltaS);
		changes |= NEW_I;
	}

That's just one example, it won't compress unless the ID
field is (unconditionally) incrementing.

The RFC being discussed here is poorly constructed and is founded on a
false basis of reality.  It's the usual tone deaf IETF stuff... and
Linux will not participate.

Thanks.