netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: vrf: Add support for sends to local broadcast address

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: <20180125.212505.388644064802782180.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 21:25:05 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     dsahern@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: vrf: Add support for sends to local
 broadcast address

From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:01:23 -0700

> On 1/25/18 2:23 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
>> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:37:37 -0800
>> 
>>> Sukumar reported that sends to the local broadcast address
>>> (255.255.255.255) are broken. Check for the address in vrf driver
>>> and do not redirect to the VRF device - similar to multicast
>>> packets.
>>>
>>> With this change sockets can use SO_BINDTODEVICE to specify an
>>> egress interface and receive responses. Note: the egress interface
>>> can not be a VRF device but needs to be the enslaved device.
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198521
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Sukumar Gopalakrishnan <sukumarg1973@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Dave: Really this is a day 1 bug that goes back to the beginning of VRF.
>>> IMO, backport to the 4.14 LTS kernel is sufficient; the multicast
>>> handling for IPv4 was only complete as of the 4.12 kernel. I directed
>>> this at net-next because it is not urgent for the 4.15 merge window.
>> 
>> You have to decide, either this is for 'net' and -stable, or it isn't.
>> 
>> We don't put things into net-next and then -stable backport it.  It
>> doesn't work like that.
> 
> Please take this one for -net and patch 2 for net-next (it's a new
> feature). I can re-send as separate patches if needed.

Ok I'll do that, no need to resend.

Thanks.