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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <91c00925-035f-637d-8cc4-a3b8692bc1fc@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 20:50:19 +0800 From: shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com> To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> CC: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <luwei32@...wei.com>, <fw@...len.de>, <maheshb@...gle.com>, <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, <yuehaibing@...wei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net,v2] ipvlan: implement .parse_protocol hook function in ipvlan_header_ops On 2023/12/2 18:34, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 3:14 AM shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2023/12/1 23:22, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >>> shaozhengchao wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2023/12/1 10:55, Zhengchao Shao wrote: >>>>> The .parse_protocol hook function in the ipvlan_header_ops structure is >>>>> not implemented. As a result, when the AF_PACKET family is used to send >>>>> packets, skb->protocol will be set to 0. >>>>> Ipvlan is a device of type ARPHRD_ETHER (ether_setup). Therefore, use >>>>> eth_header_parse_protocol function to obtain the protocol. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 2ad7bf363841 ("ipvlan: Initial check-in of the IPVLAN driver.") >>>> >>>> Maybe Fixes should be: 75c65772c3d1 ("net/packet: Ask driver for >>>> protocol if not provided by user") >>> >> Hi Willem: >>> Definitely not anything older than the introduction of >>> header_ops.parse_protocol. >>> >> Yes, I think so. >>> I gave my +1 when it targeted net-next, so imho this is not really >>> stable material anyhow. >> But, if skb->protocol = 0, no matter what type of packet it is, it >> will be discarded directly in ipvlan_process_outbound(). >> So net branch will be OK? What I missed? >> Thanks. > > This never worked, and nobody ever claimed it has ever worked: this is > a new functionality. > > net-next seems appropriate to me. > > It seems that skb->protocol == 0 is only used by fuzzers, or careless > applications ? Yes. I will send v3. Thanks. Zhengchao Shao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists