[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314731803.2556.4.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:16:43 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 42012] New: regression on 2.6.39.3 with socket/bind;
still there in 3.0.4
Le mardi 30 août 2011 à 14:07 -0400, David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:11:48 +0200
>
> > Yep, we should relax the check and accept AF_UNSPEC.
>
> I guess we'll have to do this, but I just can't bring myself to accept
> that we can just do zero validation of what the user is passing us,
> see an AF_UNSPEC, and say "yeah it's fine to assume there's an ipv4
> address in there."
I couldnt accept it either ;)
By the way, if we accept it, strace() will probably still print binary
blob instead of the IP address (not necessarily ANY address ?)
connect ( AF_UNSPEC ) has special semantic, but AFAIK, bind (AF_UNSPEC)
only brings some mixed results : FreeBSD was accepting it in old
versions it seems. I guess I should try current FreeBSD versions.
--
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