netdev - question regarding (AF_INET6, SOCK_RAW, x != IPPROTO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <200803191619.08728.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:19:08 +0200
From:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: question regarding (AF_INET6, SOCK_RAW, x != IPPROTO_RAW) sockets

Hi,

In a previous post I was asking about the ipv6_chk_addr check done in 
datagram_send_ctl when using raw sockets with IPROTO_RAW. Remi pointed out 
that this case is not relevant since we need to construct the IPv6 header 
anyway.

What about when using IPV6 raw sockets with protocol != IPPROTO_RAW? In this 
case, it seems that the header is constructed by the networking stack, and if 
we want to change the source address we need to use IPV6_PKTINFO.

But datagram_send_ctl is checking in ipv6_chk_addr for the source address to 
be a previously assigned address in the system. Is this check necessary for 
IPv6 raw sockets? The same check does not seem to be present for IPv4. Also, 
disabling ipv6_chk_addr in datagram_send_ctl for IPv6 raw sockets seems to 
fix our problem. But is this approach the right one?

Thanks,
tavi
--
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