netdev - Multicast socket behaviour?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:21:58 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Daniel Ng <daniel_ng11@...os.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject:  Multicast socket behaviour?

Hi,

The below C code registers the socket with the multicast group 'HELLO_GROUP':

    mreq.imr_multiaddr.s_addr=inet_addr(HELLO_GROUP);
    mreq.imr_address.s_addr=htonl(INADDR_ANY);

    mreq.imr_ifindex = if_nametoindex("ppp1");

    if (setsockopt(fd,IPPROTO_IP,IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP,&mreq,sizeof(mreq)) < 0) {
        perror("setsockopt");
        exit(1);
    }

I understand that if 'INADDR_ANY' is used, it is up to the kernel to decide 
what action to take.

>From my experiments, it seems that the interface corresponding to the 
highest '224.0.0.0' entry in the routing table is used.

Would someone please explain why this is so? 

How difficult would it be to have the kernel join the HELLO_GROUP on *all* 
available multicast-capable interfaces? Why isn't this currently implemented?

I'm using 2.6.14.

Cheers,
Daniel

--
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