1. 06 11月, 2008 3 次提交
  2. 04 11月, 2008 1 次提交
  3. 03 11月, 2008 3 次提交
  4. 02 11月, 2008 4 次提交
  5. 01 11月, 2008 1 次提交
    • A
      key: fix setkey(8) policy set breakage · 920da692
      Alexey Dobriyan 提交于
      Steps to reproduce:
      
      	#/usr/sbin/setkey -f
      	flush;
      	spdflush;
      
      	add 192.168.0.42 192.168.0.1 ah 24500 -A hmac-md5 "1234567890123456";
      	add 192.168.0.42 192.168.0.1 esp 24501 -E 3des-cbc "123456789012123456789012";
      
      	spdadd 192.168.0.42 192.168.0.1 any -P out ipsec
      		esp/transport//require
      		ah/transport//require;
      
      setkey: invalid keymsg length
      
      Policy dump will bail out with the same message after that.
      
      -recv(4, "\2\16\0\0\32\0\3\0\0\0\0\0\37\r\0\0\3\0\5\0\377 \0\0\2\0\0\0\300\250\0*\0"..., 32768, 0) = 208
      +recv(4, "\2\16\0\0\36\0\3\0\0\0\0\0H\t\0\0\3\0\5\0\377 \0\0\2\0\0\0\300\250\0*\0"..., 32768, 0) = 208
      Signed-off-by: NAlexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      920da692
  6. 31 10月, 2008 3 次提交
  7. 30 10月, 2008 3 次提交
  8. 29 10月, 2008 4 次提交
  9. 28 10月, 2008 2 次提交
  10. 27 10月, 2008 3 次提交
  11. 24 10月, 2008 1 次提交
    • I
      tcp: Restore ordering of TCP options for the sake of inter-operability · fd6149d3
      Ilpo Järvinen 提交于
      This is not our bug! Sadly some devices cannot cope with the change
      of TCP option ordering which was a result of the recent rewrite of
      the option code (not that there was some particular reason steming
      from the rewrite for the reordering) though any ordering of TCP
      options is perfectly legal. Thus we restore the original ordering
      to allow interoperability with/through such broken devices and add
      some warning about this trap. Since the reordering just happened
      without any particular reason, this change shouldn't cost us
      anything.
      
      There are already couple of known failure reports (within close
      proximity of the last release), so the problem might be more
      wide-spread than a single device. And other reports which may
      be due to the same problem though the symptoms were less obvious.
      Analysis of one of the case revealed (with very high probability)
      that sack capability cannot be negotiated as the first option
      (SYN never got a response).
      Signed-off-by: NIlpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
      Reported-by: NAldo Maggi <sentiniate@tiscali.it>
      Tested-by: NAldo Maggi <sentiniate@tiscali.it>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      fd6149d3
  12. 23 10月, 2008 9 次提交
  13. 22 10月, 2008 1 次提交
    • I
      tcp: should use number of sack blocks instead of -1 · 75e3d8db
      Ilpo Järvinen 提交于
      While looking for the recent "sack issue" I also read all eff_sacks
      usage that was played around by some relevant commit. I found
      out that there's another thing that is asking for a fix (unrelated
      to the "sack issue" though).
      
      This feature has probably very little significance in practice.
      Opposite direction timeout with bidirectional tcp comes to me as
      the most likely scenario though there might be other cases as
      well related to non-data segments we send (e.g., response to the
      opposite direction segment). Also some ACK losses or option space
      wasted for other purposes is necessary to prevent the earlier
      SACK feedback getting to the sender.
      Signed-off-by: NIlpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      75e3d8db
  14. 20 10月, 2008 2 次提交