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 hard
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, b
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 statement that PPPoE PADI packets can
>>>
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 payload: the PPPoE RFC states that PADI pa
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 of TAG_TYPE Service-
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 of TAG_TYPE Service-Name, indicating the
> service the Host is requesting
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Martin Blumenstingl
wrote:
> Hi Johann,
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Willem de Bruijn 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 devic
Hi Johann,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Willem de Bruijn 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
> remembers why that sta
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Martin Blumenstingl
wrote:
> Hi Willem,
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Willem de Bruijn 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 sta
Hi Willem,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Willem de Bruijn 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 */
OK, I guess it
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Martin Blumenstingl
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 PPPoE connection the following mes
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: pack
12 matches
Mail list logo
