From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] path mtu hardening patches Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:25:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20140113.112504.922587457597727366.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1389258077-23282-1-git-send-email-hannes@stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, johnwheffner@gmail.com, steffen.klassert@secunet.com, fweimer@redhat.com To: hannes@stressinduktion.org Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:38026 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752379AbaAMTZF (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:25:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1389258077-23282-1-git-send-email-hannes@stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: hannes@stressinduktion.org Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:01:14 +0100 > After a lot of back and forth I want to propose these changes regarding > path mtu hardening and give an outline why I think this is the best way > how to proceed: I'm not going to fight this any more even though I still disagree with these changes. John Heffner has not provided a coherent strong argument for not doing this, in fact the counter arguments were extremely vague. I am pretty sure that now my worst fears will be realized and every single distribution will not use the kernel's default, and everyone will get this behavior rather than adminstrators making well informed decisions about how to defend against these kind of situations when enabling routing, or whether they'd even be exposed to the issue at all in a particular setup. Such is life.