linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: Keep interface binding when sending packets with ipi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:57:46 +0400
From:	Badalian Vyacheslav <slavon@...telecom.ru>
To:	"Chia-chi Yeh (葉家齊)" 
	<chiachi@...roid.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, john.dykstra1@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Keep interface binding when sending packets with
 	ipi_ifindex = 0

Chia-chi Yeh (葉家齊) пишет:
> After thinking more deeply, I believe that IPv6 does the right thing
> and IPv4 does not. SO_BINDTODEVICE requires CAP_NET_RAW, so it is a
> privileged operation. Therefore, it looks weird to me if one can
> specify other interface than the bound one without the same
> capability. The following patch makes the behavior in IPv4 and IPv6
> identical. Thanks for your help.
> 
> Chia-chi
> 
> --- a/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c    2009-08-04 15:11:39.000000000 +0800
> +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c    2009-08-04 15:17:05.000000000 +0800
> @@ -213,7 +213,11 @@
>                         if (cmsg->cmsg_len != CMSG_LEN(sizeof(struct
> in_pktinfo)))
>                                 return -EINVAL;
>                         info = (struct in_pktinfo *)CMSG_DATA(cmsg);
> -                       ipc->oif = info->ipi_ifindex;
> +                       if (info->ipi_ifindex) {
> +                               if (ipc->oif && info->ipi_ifindex != ipc->oif)
> +                                       return -EINVAL;
> +                               ipc->oif = info->ipi_ifindex;

Hello
Sorry if its my mistake or i someone not understand :)

if (ipc->oif && info->ipi_ifindex != ipc->oif)
	// if match: info->ipi_ifindex != ipc->oif
	return ...
else
	// else match: info->ipi_ifindex == ipc->oif
	// but you do 
	ipc->oif = info->ipi_ifindex; 
	// why if you else match allready check for it?

Thanks



> +                       }
>                         ipc->addr = info->ipi_spec_dst.s_addr;
>                         break;
>                 }
> 
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:23 PM, David Miller<davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: John Dykstra <john.dykstra1@...il.com>
>> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:10:21 -0500
>>
>>> I guess Dave's letting this stand.  I'm posting this just to make sure
>>> this is an explicit decision.
>> I'm still thinking about this.
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/