[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110414131552.1822142f.shimoda.hiroaki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:15:52 +0900
From: Hiroaki SHIMODA <shimoda.hiroaki@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, lkml@...tdoyle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ip: ip_options_compile() resilient to NULL skb route
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:37:43 +0200
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Indeed good catch, but should we return 0 or -EINVAL so that caller can
> drop packet ?
>
> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ int ip_options_rcv_srr(struct sk_buff *skb)
> if (!opt->srr)
> return 0;
>
> - if (skb->pkt_type != PACKET_HOST)
> + if (skb->pkt_type != PACKET_HOST || !rt)
> return -EINVAL;
> if (rt->rt_type == RTN_UNICAST) {
> if (!opt->is_strictroute)
>
As your patch does we don't treat an skb without rt as error
on bridge/netfilter context.
So, I think returning 0 would be better off.
But thinking of ip_options_rcv_srr() is called from another context again
adding an extra check in br_parse_ip_options() is safer ?
diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netfilter.c b/net/bridge/br_netfilter.c
index f3bc322..10ac127 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_netfilter.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_netfilter.c
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ static int br_parse_ip_options(struct sk_buff *skb)
if (in_dev && !IN_DEV_SOURCE_ROUTE(in_dev))
goto drop;
- if (ip_options_rcv_srr(skb))
+ if (skb_rtable(skb) && ip_options_rcv_srr(skb))
goto drop;
}
Thanks.
--
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