netdev - Re: SO_BINDTODEVICE inconsistency between IPv4 and IPv6

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: <4D836CD2.5070807@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:31:46 -0400
From:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"Yuniverg, Michael" <michael.yuniverg@...el.com>,
	"Yedvab, Nadav" <nadav.yedvab@...el.com>,
	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: SO_BINDTODEVICE inconsistency between IPv4 and IPv6

On 03/18/2011 04:54 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 21:26 -0400, Brian Haley wrote:
>> Hmm, "connection refused", do you have any iptables rules installed?  Connecting
>> to a local global address worked fine for me on 2.6.32-30 using a home-grown
>> test app.
> 
> Thanks for looking at this.
> 
> Just to confirm... after your server does SO_BINDTODEVICE to 'lo', your
> clients on the same host can make a successful connection to global IPv6
> addresses which are assigned to the *other* interfaces? 
> 
> Can you show your version of the test app, and your results? What kernel
> is this on?

Sorry, I just re-ran my test again and noticed the SO_BINDTODEVICE failed,
since I was running it as myself, not root, so I see the same behavior as
you.  I'm not sure if this is a bug per-se, and there is this comment
in ip6_rcv() pointing towards this:

        /*
         * Store incoming device index. When the packet will
         * be queued, we cannot refer to skb->dev anymore.
         *
         * BTW, when we send a packet for our own local address on a
         * non-loopback interface (e.g. ethX), it is being delivered
         * via the loopback interface (lo) here; skb->dev = loopback_dev.
         * It, however, should be considered as if it is being
         * arrived via the sending interface (ethX), because of the
         * nature of scoping architecture. --yoshfuji
         */
        IP6CB(skb)->iif = skb_dst(skb) ? ip6_dst_idev(skb_dst(skb))->dev->ifindex : dev->ifindex;

That's probably why it's not matching.

I think Yoshifuji would be the best one to ask, cc'd.

-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