[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed271d49-e796-ebaa-2e71-35711710fd49@miraclelinux.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:44:18 +0900
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
To: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: ipv6: Fix ping to link-local addresses.
David Ahern wrote:
> On 8/9/16 1:01 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
>> On 9 August 2016 at 14:20, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>> From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:00:25 +0900
>>>
>>>> Note that pretty much every sendmsg codepath allows other data to take
>>>> precedence over sk_bound_dev_if:
>>>>
>>>> - udpv6_sendmsg: if sin6_scope_id specified on a scoped address
>>>> - rawv6_sendmsg: if sin6_scope_id specified on a scoped address
>>>> - l2tp_ip6_sendmsg: if sin6_scope_id specified on a scoped address
>>>> - ip_cmsg_send: if IP_PKTINFO or IPV6_PKTINFO specified
>>>>
>>>> What should I do about those? -EINVAL? Ignore the conflicting data? Leave as is?
>>>
>>> That's a good point, I guess this needs some more thought.
>>
>> I could see a point of view that says when bound_if is in play sending
>> to destinations on/via other interfaces--by any mechanism--should
>> effectively get ENETUNREACH (or something).
>
> VRF uses this capability to send on an enslaved interface. ie., socket is bound to VRF device to limit packets to that L3 domain and then uses PKTINFO to force a packet out a particular interface.
>
We could extend our code to allow enslave devices, maybe.
--
Hideaki Yoshifuji <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Technical Division, MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION
Powered by blists - more mailing lists