I accept that the issue is not a CVE candidate. But it's a bug isn't it Thank you for your suggestions, about the format of mail, and not next time.
Everything has its meaning. If sequence number is a joke, why the guys put it into RFC , even implemented the feature. And if you means that SMP ( Symmetric Multi Processing )? On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Liyang Yu (于立洋1) <yuliya...@le.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > BTW: > > Which RFC suggests UINT_MAX as GRE sequence number? Can you show me? > > > > > > RFC 2890 In any cases, this is absolutely not a security issue nor a CVE candidate. Please remove secur...@kernel.org from CC, no need to spam security guys, they have enough on their plate. Please send text messages, no HTML is allowed on netdev Nobody sane uses GRE sequence numbers, precisely because GRE has no documented way to synchronize the source and destination of the tunnel. Basically, if you use GRE sequence numbers, you must re-start other side of the tunnel if one side had to restart, or risk dropping up to 2^31 packets. Really, this is not something that can be solved by using 'a different initial sequence number' linux GRE sequence number support is a joke, it does not support SMP for a start. > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Liyang Yu (于立洋1) <yuliya...@le.com> wrote: > > > Yeah，I means that recreate the tunnel again, But I don’t think the > > > patch can fix the bug. It only can make the first packet received > > successed. And the follow packet will droped also. > > > In function __gre_xmit line 366 > > > tunnel->o_seqno++; > > > > > > If you restart from UINT_MAX, the 'o_seqno' of second packet will return to > > 0 again. > > > > The first packet after restart: o_seqno == UINT_MAX, the other end: > i_seqno = 0 The second packet after restart: o_seqno == 0, the other > end: i_seqno = 1 > > > > So traffic should be back to normal. > > > > UINT_MAX is also what RFC suggests.
