netdev - [Q] ipv6: RTM_GETROUTE interpretation of RTA

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120329150311.51fe0e2d@pixies.home.jungo.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:03:11 +0200
From:	Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Q] ipv6: RTM_GETROUTE interpretation of RTA_IIF

Hi,

In IPv4, if the RTA_IIF attribute is specified in an RTM_GETROUTE
message, then a route is searched as if a packet was received on the
specified iif interface - i.e. 'inet_rtm_getroute()' calls
'ip_route_input()'.

However in IPv6, RTA_IIF is not interpreted in the same way:
'inet6_rtm_getroute()' always calls 'ip6_route_output()', regardless the
RTA_IIF attribute.

As a result, in IPv6 there's no way to use RTM_GETROUTE in order to look
for a route as if a packet was received on a specific interface.

I'd like to modify 'inet6_rtm_getroute()' so that RTA_IIF is interpreted
in the same way as in IPv4's 'inet_rtm_getroute()'.

Before I come up with a patch, I'd like to know whether current
interpretation of RTA_IIF in 'inet6_rtm_getroute()' is deliberate.

Regards,
Shmulik
--
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