netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Missing INET6_PROTO_FINAL in l2tp_ip6_protocol?
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:02:52 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160521230252.27931eee@halley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9bd1a821-17ea-778a-b0c7-4e9e35f9fcc1@stressinduktion.org>

On Sat, 21 May 2016 17:55:59 +0200 Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> wrote:
> On 21.05.2016 14:50, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > inet6_protocol's INET6_PROTO_FINAL flag denotes handler is expected not
> > to request resubmission for local delivery.
> > 
> > For an INET6_PROTO_FINAL handler, the following actions gets executed
> > prior delivery, in ip6_input_finish:
> > 
> > 			nf_reset(skb);
> > 
> > 			skb_postpull_rcsum(skb, skb_network_header(skb),
> > 					   skb_network_header_len(skb));
> > 
> > For some reason, l2tp_ip6_protocol handler is NOT marked as
> > INET6_PROTO_FINAL. Probably an oversight.
> > 
> > Since 'l2tp_ip6_recv' never results in a resubmission, the above actions
> > are not applied to skbs passed to l2tp_ip6.
> > 
> > Any reason why l2tp_ip6_protocol should NOT be marked INET6_PROTO_FINAL?  
> 
> I don't see any specific reason why it shouldn't be a INET6_PROTO_FINAL.
> Anyway, receive path of L2TPv3 without UDP encapsulation doesn't deal
> with checksums anyway, as far as I know.
> 
> > What's the consequences not executing the above actions for l2tp_ip6
> > packets?  
> 
> Probably not a whole lot in this case.

OK, so the skb_postpull_rcsum is irrelevant for IPPROTO_L2TP over ipv6.

However, one more thing WRT to INET6_PROTO_FINAL not being set - we're
also missing the multicast filtering of 'ip6_input_finish':

			if (ipv6_addr_is_multicast(&hdr->daddr) &&
			    !ipv6_chk_mcast_addr(skb->dev, &hdr->daddr,
			    &hdr->saddr) &&
			    !ipv6_is_mld(skb, nexthdr, skb_network_header_len(skb)))
				goto discard;

I assume no reason to allow multicast daddr which aren't in the mc_list
(or saddr excluded) to pass up into 'l2tp_ip6_recv'?

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-21 20:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-21 12:50 Missing INET6_PROTO_FINAL in l2tp_ip6_protocol? Shmulik Ladkani
2016-05-21 15:55 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-05-21 20:02   ` Shmulik Ladkani [this message]
2016-05-23 11:05     ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-05-23 11:25       ` Shmulik Ladkani

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=20160521230252.27931eee@halley \
    --to=shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com \
    --cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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).