From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] ipv4: introduce ip_dst_mtu_secure and protect forwarding path against pmtu spoofing Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 01:11:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20140107001103.GE10204@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20140106084827.GA5766@order.stressinduktion.org> <20140106.160846.544525591241855516.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, johnwheffner@gmail.com, steffen.klassert@secunet.com, fweimer@redhat.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:43788 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932755AbaAGALF (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:11:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140106.160846.544525591241855516.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Hannes Frederic Sowa > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:48:27 +0100 > > > I want to put these patches up for discussion again. I did more testing > > to them (xfrm, tunnel), did some rewording and rewrote the IPv6 patch. > > I'm still thinking about this series. > > I would have been nice if you provided a "0/3" introductory posting > discussing your point of view, and giving a more detailed analysis of > your view of the situation so that John and others have something to > reply to. I'll do next time, sorry. I am around for discussion. Have you seen that Steffen did test these patches with his pmtu testsuite successfully and they showed no obvious regressions (he posted to the old thread)? Thanks, Hannes