netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Keep interface binding when sending packets with ipi

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

Message-Id: <20090804.115701.250978139.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	chiachi@...roid.com
Cc:	john.dykstra1@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Keep interface binding when sending packets with
 ipi_ifindex = 0

From: Chia-chi Yeh (葉家齊) <chiachi@...roid.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:36:46 +0800

> After thinking more deeply, I believe that IPv6 does the right thing
> and IPv4 does not. SO_BINDTODEVICE requires CAP_NET_RAW, so it is a
> privileged operation. Therefore, it looks weird to me if one can
> specify other interface than the bound one without the same
> capability. The following patch makes the behavior in IPv4 and IPv6
> identical. Thanks for your help.

I think we really cannot change behavior here.  If the user specifies
"0" in ipi_ifindex we must respect that in ipc->oif.  This is an
override, and the ability to override is the very purpose of this
control message.

Even GLIBC makes use of that case of specifying "0" in ipi_ifindex.
We must respect it.

I'm not applying any of these patches, sorry.
--
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