[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48BF598A.6020702@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:44:10 +0800
From: Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com>
To: Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
CC: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ipv6: return with appropriate error code when
sending RH0 using setsockopt()
Brian Haley 写道:
> Shan Wei wrote:
>> I'm sorry to resend the patch, for that no one replied it from Jun 27.
>>
>> The kernel had removed the RH0(Type 0 Routing Header), but we can still
>> send IPv6 packet with RH0 using sendmsg() or setsockopt().
>>
>> Compare with sendmsg() that returns EINVAL, but setsockopt() return EPERM.
>> The patch fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c b/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
>> index 4e5eac3..7a58597 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
>> @@ -353,9 +353,10 @@ static int do_ipv6_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
>> goto e_inval;
>>
>> /* hop-by-hop / destination options are privileged option */
>> - retv = -EPERM;
>> - if (optname != IPV6_RTHDR && !capable(CAP_NET_RAW))
>> + if (optname != IPV6_RTHDR && !capable(CAP_NET_RAW)) {
>> + retv = -EPERM;
>> break;
>> + }
>
> I'm not sure you need this since it doesn't actually change anything,
> setting the error before the check just seems like the style in this
> function. It will get set to -EINVAL below...
>
For uncommon expection, if the check is true, we set the error.
it will reduce the number of setting retv value.
>> @@ -365,6 +366,7 @@ static int do_ipv6_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> + retv = -EINVAL;
>> /* routing header option needs extra check */
>> if (optname == IPV6_RTHDR && opt && opt->srcrt) {
>> struct ipv6_rt_hdr *rthdr = opt->srcrt;
>
> This seems correct as trying to set an unsupported routing header type
> is invalid, or trying to set a Type 2 that itself is invalid is bad.
> The Unix I checked does this.
>
yes
> There's actually another bug here and in the sendmsg() path in that you
> can set the hdrlen and segments_left fields to be invalid (according to
> RFC3775), as long as the math works out (segments * 2 == length).
> Segments_left should always be 1 and hdrlen 2 for a Type2 routing
> header. The packet should be dropped at the destination, but we
> probably shouldn't send it. I can send a patch for that later.
>
> -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