netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: ext_header: add function to handle RPL extension header option 0x63

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170504160042.GB2385@nanopsycho>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2017 18:00:42 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Andreas Bardoutsos <bardoutsos@...d.upatras.gr>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Richardson <mcr@...delman.ca>,
        Unstrung Hackers <unstrung-hackers@...ts.sandelman.ca>,
        netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: ext_header: add function to handle RPL
 extension header option 0x63

Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:17:18PM CEST, bardoutsos@...d.upatras.gr wrote:
>Signed-off-by: Andreas Bardoutsos <bardoutsos@...d.upatras.gr>
>---
>Hi all!
>
>I have added a dump function(always return true) to recognise RPL extension
>header(RFC6553)
>Otherwise packet was dropped by kernel resulting in failing communication in
>RPL DAG's between
>linux running border routers and devices in the graph.For example
>communication
>with contiki OS running devices was previously impossible.
>
> include/uapi/linux/in6.h |  1 +
> net/ipv6/exthdrs.c       | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/in6.h b/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
>index 46444f8fbee4..5cc12d309dfe 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
>@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ struct in6_flowlabel_req {
> #define IPV6_TLV_CALIPSO	7	/* RFC 5570 */
> #define IPV6_TLV_JUMBO		194
> #define IPV6_TLV_HAO		201	/* home address option */
>+#define IPV6_TLV_RPL	99	/* RFC 6553 */
>
> /*
>  *	IPV6 socket options
>diff --git a/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c b/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
>index b636f1da9aec..82ed60d3180e 100644
>--- a/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
>+++ b/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
>@@ -785,6 +785,15 @@ static bool ipv6_hop_calipso(struct sk_buff *skb, int
>optoff)
> 	return false;
> }
>
>+/* RPL RFC 6553 */
>+
>+static bool ipv6_hop_rpl(struct sk_buff *skb, int optoff)
>+{
>+	/*Dump function which always return true
>+	*when rpl option is detected*/

This is definitelly wrong formatting of comment. Did you run checkpatch?


>+	return true;
>+}
>+
> static const struct tlvtype_proc tlvprochopopt_lst[] = {
> 	{
> 		.type	= IPV6_TLV_ROUTERALERT,
>@@ -798,6 +807,10 @@ static const struct tlvtype_proc tlvprochopopt_lst[] = {
> 		.type	= IPV6_TLV_CALIPSO,
> 		.func	= ipv6_hop_calipso,
> 	},
>+	{
>+		.type	= IPV6_TLV_RPL,
>+		.func	= ipv6_hop_rpl,
>+	},
> 	{ -1, }
> };
>