[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47696DA0.7060003@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:14:40 -0500
From: Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
To: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org,
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [IPv6]: IPV6_MULTICAST_IF setting is ignored on link-local
connect()
David Stevens wrote:
> Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com> wrote on 12/19/2007 07:20:53 AM:
>
>> But this still requires either a SO_BINDTODEVICE or sin6_scope_id. This
>> means the an application can call BINDTODEVICE(eth0), MULTICAST_IF(eth1)
>> issue a connect on a UDP socket an succeed? Seems wrong to me.
>>
>> Can you check section 6.7 of RFC 3542.
>
> No, it requires one of SO_BINDTODEVICE, sin6_scope_id, or
> IPV6_MULTICAST_IF.
> If you do an SO_BINDTODEVICE(eth0) and then an IPV6_MULTICAST_IF(eth1),
> the
> IPV6_MULTICAST_IF will fail in setsockopt (EINVAL), because it requires a
> match
> for bound sockets. I'm not sure if SO_BINDTODEVICE resets mcast_oif if you
> do
> them in the reverse order, but that would be a bug in SO_BINDTODEVICE.
It doesn't, that was one way I tested my first patch by forcing a mis-match.
> The precedence order as implemented already is:
>
> SO_BINDTODEVICE is highest and always wins
> sin6_scope_id next
> IPV6_MULTICAST_IF
>
> and the existing code has the rule that all link-local addresses require a
> sin6_scope_id. The change (intended) is to relax the sin6_scope_id rule
> only
> for link-local multicasts that have done either an SO_BINDTODEVICE or
> IPV6_MULTICAST_IF already.
Yes, that was the intention of my patch.
-Brian
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists