Re: [RFC PATCH 16/17] calipso: Add validation of CALIPSO option.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:47:43PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On 22.12.2015 17:59, Huw Davies wrote:
> > I'm confused about this one.  AFAICS, this will drop packets that we
> > can't process.  We don't send the icmp error, but I can certainly add
> > that.  Is that what you mean?
> 
> Actually, the implementation of calipso_validate will accept the packets
> because it defaults to return true if we don't compile the module. At
> least we should drop the packet if it is not loaded. I am in favor of
> adding the parameter problem icmp error. So, yes, I think it should be
> added.

Yet the option value is 0x07, i.e. the two highest bits are both zero
which according to:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460#section-4.2
means we should just skip it.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5570#section-5.1.1
reaffirms that.

In terms of sending an icmp on error while validating:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5570#section-6.2.2
is pretty conservative in that case too.  Most errors
should just be silently dropped.

Huw.
_______________________________________________
Selinux mailing list
Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.



[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux