Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1522941
| From | Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages |
| Date | 2016-11-15 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sDPSa-7Wd-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sCqCu-I7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sDukF-2cH-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sDPfr-7tr-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <sDPfr-7tr-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
David Miller <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
> From: Vicente Jiménez <googuy@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:49:43 +0100
>
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 7:36 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> >> From: Vicente Jimenez Aguilar <googuy@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 21:20:18 +0100
> >>
> >>> @@ -819,6 +820,12 @@ static bool icmp_unreach(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >>> /* fall through */
> >>> case 0:
> >>> info = ntohs(icmph->un.frag.mtu);
> >>> + /* Handle weird case where next hop MTU is
> >>> + * equal to or exceeding dropped packet size
> >>> + */
> >>> + old_mtu = ntohs(iph->tot_len);
> >>> + if (info >= old_mtu)
> >>> + info = old_mtu - 2;
> >>
> >> This isn't something the old code did.
> >>
> >> The old code behaved much differently.
> >>
> > I don't wanted to restore old behavior just fix a strange case that
> > was handle by this code where the next hop MTU reported by the router
> > is equal or greater than the actual path MTU. Because router
> > information is wrong, we need a way to guess a good packet size
> > ignoring router data. The simplest strategy that avoid odd numbers is
> > reducing dropped packet size by 2.
>
> This whole approach seems arbitrary.
>
> You haven't discussed in any way, what causes this in the first place.
> And what about that cause makes simply subtracting by 2 work well or
> not.
>
> You have a very locallized, specific, situation on your end you want
> to fix. But we must accept changes that handle things generically and
> in a way that would help more than just your specific case.
FWIW this is similar to the patch I sent a while ago:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/493997/
I think in interest of robustness principle ("eat shit and don't die")
one of these changes should go in :-|
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages Vicente Jimenez Aguilar <googuy@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 21:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2016-11-14 19:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages David Miller <davem@redhat.com> - 2016-11-15 18:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> - 2016-11-15 18:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages Vicente Jiménez <googuy@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 20:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> - 2016-11-16 02:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages Vicente Jiménez <googuy@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 02:20 +0100
csiph-web