Hello.
On 11/21/2015 3:50 AM, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
9c70776 added validation for the packet size in packet_snd. This change
Please run your patch thru scripts/checkpatch.pl -- it now enforces
certain commit citing style.
enforced that every packet needs a header with at least
9c70776 added validation for the packet size in packet_snd. This change
enforced that every packet needs a header with at least hard_header_len
bytes and at least one byte payload.
This fixes PPPoE connections which do not have a "Service" or
"Host-Uniq" configured (which is violating the spec,
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2015-07-31 00:15, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> Martin, to return to your initial statement that PPPoE PADI packets can
>>> have a zero
On 2015-11-09 18:53, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> On 2015-07-31 00:15, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Willem de Bruijn
>>> wrote:
Martin, to return to your initial
On 2015-07-31 00:15, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> Martin, to return to your initial statement that PPPoE PADI packets can
>> have a zero payload: the PPPoE RFC states that PADI packets "MUST
>> contain exactly one TAG
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Willem de Bruijn will...@google.com wrote:
Martin, to return to your initial statement that PPPoE PADI packets can
have a zero payload: the PPPoE RFC states that PADI packets MUST
contain exactly one TAG of TAG_TYPE Service-Name, indicating the
service the Host
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Martin Blumenstingl
martin.blumensti...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Johann,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Willem de Bruijn will...@google.com wrote:
I don't see a simple way of verifying the safety of allowing packets
without data short of a code audit, which
Hi Johann,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Willem de Bruijn will...@google.com wrote:
I don't see a simple way of verifying the safety of allowing packets
without data short of a code audit, which would be huge, especially
when taking device driver logic into account. Perhaps someone
9c70776 added validation for the packet size in packet_snd. This change
enforced that every packet needs a long enough header and at least one
byte payload.
However, when trying to establish a PPPoE connection the following message
is printed every time a PPPoE discovery packet is sent:
pppd:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Martin Blumenstingl
martin.blumensti...@googlemail.com wrote:
9c70776 added validation for the packet size in packet_snd. This change
enforced that every packet needs a long enough header and at least one
byte payload.
However, when trying to establish a
Hi Willem,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Willem de Bruijn will...@google.com wrote:
Interesting. 9c7077622dd9 only extended the check from tpacket_snd to
packet_snd to make the two paths equivalent. The existing check had the
ominous statement
/* net device doesn't like empty head */
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Martin Blumenstingl
martin.blumensti...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Willem,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Willem de Bruijn will...@google.com wrote:
Interesting. 9c7077622dd9 only extended the check from tpacket_snd to
packet_snd to make the two paths
12 matches
Mail list logo