[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8cd5324-3beb-1afd-37fe-7e4c1e6c4de2@miraclelinux.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:37:25 +0900
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
To: 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.
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).
+1
>
> That does seem like I would involve changing some existing behavior, though.
>
The use of sin6_scope_id and SO_BINDTODEVICE with different interfaces
is incorrect and should be rejected.
--
Hideaki Yoshifuji <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Technical Division, MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION
Powered by blists - more mailing lists