netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: fix for ip_options_rcv

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:26:31 +0800
From:	Li Wei <lw@...fujitsu.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: fix for ip_options_rcv_srr() daddr update.

> From: Li Wei <lw@...fujitsu.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:40:45 +0800
> 
>> These days i am doing some ICMP tests and sadly found that wen can't update
>> iph->daddr in ip_options_rcv_srr(), It's too early. When some exception
>> ocurred later (eg. in ip_forward() when goto sr_failed) we need the ip header
>> be identical to the original one as ICMP need it.
>>
>> It seems we need rt->rt_dst in ip_forward_options() and ip_forward() instead
>> of iph->daddr.
> 
> An alternative is to store the calculated destination address somewhere
> in the IPCB(skb).
> 
> 

You mean modify struct inet_skb_parm add some field to store the calculated 
destination address?

My question, in ip_forward() and ip_forward_options() rt is there, why not
we just use it?

--
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