netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Implement IPV6_UNICAST

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]

Message-ID: <CAEU2+vr823WcoF_Z4NV7ptWNBQ4uTG+tD2VAXbQPDYGqsaKpLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:11:32 -0700
From:	"Erich E. Hoover" <ehoover@...es.edu>
To:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
Cc:	Linux Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Implement IPV6_UNICAST_IF socket option.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com> wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 12:57 PM, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
> > ...
> > +     int                     outif_index;
> ...
> Nitpick: is ucast_oif a better name?

I templated off of the IPv4 code (example: mc_index), but I do think
that that is a better name.  Should I call the IPv4 version
"ucast_index" or have the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6?

> > diff --git a/net/ipv6/icmp.c b/net/ipv6/icmp.c
> > index 01d46bf..18f144e 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv6/icmp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv6/icmp.c
> > @@ -551,6 +551,9 @@ static void icmpv6_echo_reply(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >               return;
> >       np = inet6_sk(sk);
> >
> > +     if (!fl6.flowi6_oif)
> > +             fl6.flowi6_oif = ipv6_default_ifindex(sk);
> > +
> >       if (!fl6.flowi6_oif && ipv6_addr_is_multicast(&fl6.daddr))
> >               fl6.flowi6_oif = np->mcast_oif;
>
> This snippet shows (and rawv6_sendmsg() has the same problem), that
> IPV6_UNICAST_IF can also affect multicast packets.  And I think we always want
> SO_BINDTODEVICE to override them all.  Perhaps these checks should be:
> ...

I'll double check all of these tonight, but a cursory look seems to
indicate that the multicast check is the right place to put this for
all the files.  I'm sorry about that, I clearly didn't consider
interfering with multicast.

Erich Hoover
ehoover@...es.edu
--
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