From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: David Miller <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: googuy@gmail.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org,
yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:30:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161115173024.GD30581@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161115.115657.798577230951109692.davem@redhat.com>
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 :-|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-15 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-11 20:20 [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages Vicente Jimenez Aguilar
2016-11-14 18:36 ` David Miller
2016-11-15 16:49 ` Vicente Jiménez
2016-11-15 16:56 ` David Miller
2016-11-15 17:30 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2016-11-15 19:32 ` Vicente Jiménez
2016-11-16 1:14 ` Florian Westphal
2016-11-17 1:17 ` Vicente Jiménez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161115173024.GD30581@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=googuy@gmail.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).