netdev - RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] Implement IP_UNICAST

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:	Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:30:10 -0500
From:	Shawn Lu <shawn.lu@...csson.com>
To:	"Erich E. Hoover" <ehoover@...es.edu>
CC:	Linux Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] Implement IP_UNICAST_IF socket option.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erich E. Hoover [mailto:ehoover@...es.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:51 AM
> To: Shawn Lu
> Cc: Linux Netdev
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Implement IP_UNICAST_IF socket option.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Shawn Lu 
> <shawn.lu@...csson.com> wrote:
> >...
> > What I mean is replace
> >  if (sk->sk_bound_dev_if && ifindex != sk->sk_bound_dev_if)  With
> >  if (sk->sk_bound_dev_if)
> 
> Are you sure that that's appropriate?  I choose to do it this 
> way since IP_MULTICAST_IF does the exact same check.
If sk->sk_bound_dev_if has a value,  we are not going to use
outif_index anywhere. Seting outif_index is confusing in this case,

In addition,  when socket has bond to specific device, this
Option should return fail to indicate it is wrong to use  IP_UNICAST_IF
Here.
> 
> Erich Hoover
> ehoover@...es.edu
> --
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