[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080711173549.GC4534@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:35:49 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, jmorris@...ei.org, kaber@...sh.net,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, pekkas@...core.fi,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv4 Multicast: prevent reception of mcast frames from
unjoined groups
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:16:41AM -0700, David Stevens wrote:
> netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org wrote on 07/11/2008 08:21:13 AM:
>
> > The current ipv4 multicast code incorrectly allows frames destined to
> any
> > multicast group to be received on any socket that is bound to
> INADDR_ANY,
> > regardless of weather or not that socket is subscribed to that group.
>
> NACK. As Alexey already quoted from me, multicasting just doesn't work
> that way, since the beginning of time.
>
> +-DLS
So you're saying that if I take a process, call bind, specifying INADDR_ANY, and
then call setsockopt(...,IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP,...) specifying a multicast group X,
that I can expect to recieve messages from other multicast addresses that other
processes in the system have joined to? That doesn't seem at all correct, and
it contradicts what you and I discussed privately. As the code currently
stands, if you do the above in process A, joining mcast group X, and then start
a second process on the same system, joining mcast group Y, process A will
recieve mcast group Y frames.
Neil
--
/****************************************************
* Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
* Software Engineer, Red Hat
****************************************************/
--
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