From owner-freebsd-net Fri Apr 5 15:10:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-30-103.research.att.com [135.207.30.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E24C37B405; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:10:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from alliance.research.att.com (alliance.research.att.com [135.207.26.26]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E423F1E03D; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:10:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from windsor.research.att.com (windsor.research.att.com [135.207.26.46]) by alliance.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22215; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:10:02 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Fenner Received: (from fenner@localhost) by windsor.research.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.5) id PAA21604; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:10:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200204052310.PAA21604@windsor.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP fragmentation (was Re: Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode) Cc: gallatin@cs.duke.edu, tlambert2@mindspring.com, net@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20020403181854.I42720-100000@angui.sh> <15532.29114.310072.957330@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <200204050504.g355493C001200@intruder.bmah.org> <15533.46222.49598.958821@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <3CADE0E7.ED472650@mindspring.com> <15533.57961.725030.692387@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <200204052120.g35LKW00034174@intruder.bmah.org> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:10:02 -0800 Versions: dmail (solaris) 2.4/makemail 2.9b Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >Just for the heck of it, I started reading through ip_input.c to see how >hard this would be to do. Haven't got there yet, I saw something odd: >the variables ip_nfragpackets and nipq look *awfully* similar. So do the commit logs for the revisions in which each was introduced. Revision 1.65 - Mon Sep 15 23:07:01 1997 UTC (4 years, 6 months ago) by ache Prevent overflow with fragmented packets vs. Revision 1.169 - Sun Jun 3 23:33:23 2001 UTC (10 months ago) by jesper Prevent denial of service using bogus fragmented IPv4 packets. so I think you're right, that they're both meant to do the same thing but neither is doing what they intended. Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message