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]
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:54:27 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>
Cc:     Netdev <>,
        LKML <>,,,
Subject: Re: Routing loops & TTL tracking with tunnel devices

On 4/28/22 17:37, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hey Eric,
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 03:41:35AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Eric Dumazet <> wrote:
>>> There is very little chance we'll accept a new member in sk_buff, unless
>>> proven needed.
>> I actually have no intention of doing this! I'm wondering if there
>> already is a member in sk_buff that moonlights as my desired ttl
>> counter, or if there's another mechanism for avoiding routing loops. I
>> want to work with what's already there, rather than meddling with the
>> innards of important and memory sensitive structures such as sk_buff.
> Well, 7 years later... Maybe you have a better idea now of what I was
> working on then. :)
> As an update on this issue, it's still quasi problematic. To review, I
> can't use the TTL value, because the outer packet always must get the
> TTL of the route to the outer destination, not the inner packet minus
> one. I can't rely on reaching MTU size, because people want this to work
> with fragmentation (see [1] for my attempt to disallow fragmentation for
> this issue, which resulted in hoots and hollers). I can't use the
> per-cpu xmit_recursion variable, because I use threads.
> What I can sort of use is taking advantage of what looks like a bug in
> pskb expansion, such that it always allocates too much, and pretty
> quickly fails allocations after a few loops. Only powerpc64 and s390x
> don't appear to have this bug. See [2] for a description of this in
> depth I wrote a few months ago to you.

Hmm, I will take a look later I think. Thanks for the reminder.

> Anyway, it'd be nice if there were a free u8 somewhere in sk_buff that I
> could use for tracking times through the stack. Other kernels have this
> but afaict Linux still does not. I looked into trying to overload some
> existing fields -- tstamp/skb_mstamp_ns or queue_mapping -- which I was
> thinking might be totally unused on TX?

if skbs are stored in some internal wireguard queue, can not you use 

like many other layers do ?

> Any ideas about this?
> Thanks,
> Jason
> [1]
> [2]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists