lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #7272, LWIP_ICMP option
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #7272: LWIP_ICMP option
Submitter: | Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> | ||
Submitted: | Tue 04 Sep 2007 08:09:37 AM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Should Start On: | Mon 03 Sep 2007 10:00:00 PM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Mon 03 Sep 2007 10:00:00 PM UTC | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | fbernon | Percent Complete: | 100% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | 1.3.0 |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Wed 05 Sep 2007 05:42:21 PM UTC, comment #9: |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 05 Sep 2007 05:39:58 PM UTC, comment #8: UDP is meant to send ICMP destination unreachable when there's no pcb. TCP sends a RST. It doesn't send ICMP.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Wed 05 Sep 2007 05:23:13 PM UTC, comment #7: Ok, so, it's check in. I add the comment in opt.h to warn compliance problem.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 05 Sep 2007 03:30:36 PM UTC, comment #6: There's no harm to this, so I'm ok with it. |
Jared Grubb <jgrubb> |
Wed 05 Sep 2007 02:21:05 PM UTC, comment #5: Fine with me in principle, although I haven't looked into the detail of the patch. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 05 Sep 2007 08:58:44 AM UTC, comment #4: But about compliance, I think I should add a comment in opt.h like "if you disable ICMP, your product will not be compliant with RFCxxx". |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 05 Sep 2007 08:11:18 AM UTC, comment #3: Even, if it is "non-compliant", it stay an usual way to limit DoS attacks on the Internet (most of hacking tools start port scanning only if they detect an IP with a "ping"). More, if you don't need ICMP, I suppose than disabling the code to reduce footprint is something useful (and in the same spirit than the other option we got).
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 04 Sep 2007 11:52:39 PM UTC, comment #2: Disabling ICMP would make the stack non-compliant, right? Is this something anyone would want to do? |
Jared Grubb <jgrubb> |
Tue 04 Sep 2007 10:48:12 PM UTC, comment #1: I attach a patch file. No objects to check in ?
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 04 Sep 2007 08:09:37 AM UTC, original submission:
I would like to introduce a LWIP_ICMP option (enabled per default in opt.h, so, no change with current behavior at build and runtime) to be able to disable the code when I don't need it (reduce footprint, or reduce "visibility" on the Internet). Is there any objections on that ?
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 8 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007-09-05 | fbernon | Status | In Progress | Done | |
Percent Complete | 90% | 100% | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2007-09-05 | fbernon | Status | None | In Progress | |
Percent Complete | 50% | 90% | |||
Planned Release | None | 1.3.0 | |||
2007-09-04 | fbernon | Attached File | - | Added LWIP_ICMP.patch, #13879 | |
Percent Complete | 0% | 50% |
Powered by Savane 3.13-caa5.
Corresponding source code
Ok, thank. So, I can close this task...