Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:31:07 +0100 (CET) From: Emeric POUPON <emeric.poupon@stormshield.eu> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fragment questions Message-ID: <2047974073.25663527.1426858267777.JavaMail.zimbra@stormshield.eu> In-Reply-To: <550AC709.1050404@selasky.org> References: <522774578.25519037.1426765109046.JavaMail.zimbra@stormshield.eu> <550AC709.1050404@selasky.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Yes indeed, it has already been fixed! However, the second point seems to be still here... Regards, Emeric ----- Mail original ----- De: "Hans Petter Selasky" <hps@selasky.org> =C3=80: "Emeric POUPON" <emeric.poupon@stormshield.eu>, "freebsd-net" <free= bsd-net@freebsd.org> Envoy=C3=A9: Jeudi 19 Mars 2015 13:54:33 Objet: Re: Fragment questions On 03/19/15 12:38, Emeric POUPON wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed two questionable things in the fragmentation code: > - in ip_fragment, we do not copy the flowid from the original mbuf to the= fragmented mbuf. Therefore we may output very desynchronized fragments (fi= rst fragment emitted far later the second fragment, etc.) > - in the ip_newid macro, we do "htons(V_ip_id++))" if we do not use rando= mized id. In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the sa= me id. > > Both problems combined lead to bad packet reassembly on the remote host. > > What do you think? > Hi, I think this issue is already fixed: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/netinet/ip_output.c?revision=3D278= 103&view=3Dmarkup --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2047974073.25663527.1426858267777.JavaMail.zimbra>