From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A2EC56201 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:00:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EC520715 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.com header.i=@cloudflare.com header.b="dlRZk+pt" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727323AbgKLJAN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:00:13 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36072 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725995AbgKLJAL (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:00:11 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x141.google.com (mail-lf1-x141.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::141]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A8FC0613D4 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x141.google.com with SMTP id d17so7146275lfq.10 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:00:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=6hq1Ugv3HkONjgb2TpIAbqEThyFQQyw3Au9DYtN5sqo=; b=dlRZk+ptqphaGEnbeS4FBLHGHSycXqm81pivADn5zLixb/0WuNC3Nv+3BkIPc/2bi5 aD5MPdoTphBw3cL1Hkx6NO7Qdv6McoWaVDQH4JmCHuXpDjjZAUXAS3gFerqTQOEVz4W2 bXK5FHEMiMoHScuK2sC1br0HL3tbBc0FZbwXg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=6hq1Ugv3HkONjgb2TpIAbqEThyFQQyw3Au9DYtN5sqo=; b=IIbhsEkTHAdqMwM7+w/EEha3dhO6hFdD40wl4clCEJOofUMrNSJjKZMDxVsVAUOc3E J17R/89ZhrxGkLwAUhjsKOmComViSLaWmiSrxctUCrh7odt55QbDrnmLUvfbGGV/U0HP F8ZEFFVr01FKjIK4/7wcIozZeP9LDcpmcma0Blvf8prVvsAyikpkxlWGcf2PMw4yx2gF YMd4Gbj0+Id5B00rb8b1+bhtF6iQYu74OzQEpS/U1hyCv5xdRRfu1aeVy5P6n18b70zo EbH8TS4Vb3Gkn7NmoouJhIR+bfKV1ZN0m7oFpN5AqYrC24X+a7GUzRxoON0tjUA5fFwj QH3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kYM624+NW6py6CGqspNK5zexH17M6fhr7qJvdjMr0+joH5r5c A22xhWu9+wPALwfaNNQyEK9C2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkLX0tbuLgl+cGAeACPaweC5UrkY8OHb9dP3CA9ymo1IWJVv4o8CJHQs+bJpeI8L6QKJqQGw== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:515b:: with SMTP id q27mr11462732lfd.123.1605171608405; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cloudflare.com ([2a02:a310:c262:aa00:b35e:8938:2c2a:ba8b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 129sm487138lfg.214.2020.11.12.01.00.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:00:07 -0800 (PST) References: <87imacw3bh.fsf@cloudflare.com> <292adb9d-899a-fcb0-a37f-cd21e848fede@iogearbox.net> User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.3 From: Jakub Sitnicki To: Daniel Borkmann , Santucci Pierpaolo Cc: Andrii Nakryiko , Shuah Khan , Alexei Starovoitov , Martin Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , Andrii Nakryiko , john fastabend , KP Singh , Networking , bpf , sdf@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftest/bpf: fix IPV6FR handling in flow dissector In-reply-to: <292adb9d-899a-fcb0-a37f-cd21e848fede@iogearbox.net> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:00:06 +0100 Message-ID: <87h7pvvtk9.fsf@cloudflare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:06 AM CET, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] >>> I'm not initimately familiar with this test, but looking at the change >>> I'd consider that Destinations Options and encapsulation headers can >>> follow the Fragment Header. >>> >>> With enough of Dst Opts or levels of encapsulation, transport header >>> could be pushed to the 2nd fragment. So I'm not sure if the assertion >>> from the IPv4 dissector that 2nd fragment and following doesn't contain >>> any parseable header holds. > > Hm, staring at rfc8200, it says that the first fragment packet must include > the upper-layer header (e.g. tcp, udp). The patch here should probably add a > comment wrt to the rfc. You're right, it clearly says so. Nevermind my worries about malformed packets then. Change LGTM: Reviewed-by: Jakub Sitnicki