Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:10:02 -0800 From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: gallatin@cs.duke.edu, tlambert2@mindspring.com, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP fragmentation (was Re: Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode) Message-ID: <200204052310.PAA21604@windsor.research.att.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200204052310.PAA21604>