netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] rds: Enable RDS IPv6 support

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

Message-ID: <5231a07e-0181-41c6-99ba-4dc7fbe6afad@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:44:15 -0700
From:   Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
To:     Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>,
        Ka-Cheong Poon <ka-cheong.poon@...cle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        rds-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] rds: Enable RDS IPv6 support

On 6/25/2018 10:50 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> On (06/26/18 01:43), Ka-Cheong Poon wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I think if the socket is bound, it should check the scope_id
>> in msg_name (if not NULL) to make sure that they match.  A bound
>> RDS socket can send to multiple peers.  But if the bound local
>> address is link local, it should only be allowed to send to peers
>> on the same link.
> 
> agree.
Yep. Its inline with RDS bind behavior.

> 
> 
>> If a socket is bound, I guess the scope_id should be used.  So
>> if a socket is not bound to a link local address and the socket
>> is used to sent to a link local peer, it should fail.
> 
> PF_RDS sockets *MUST* alwasy be bound.  See
> Documentation/networking/rds.txt:
> "   Sockets must be bound before you can send or receive data.
>      This is needed because binding also selects a transport and
>      attaches it to the socket. Once bound, the transport assignment
>      does not change."
> 
In any case link local or not, the socket needs to be bound before
any data can be sent as documented. Send path already enforces
it.

>>> Also, why is there no IPv6 support in rds_connect?
>>
>>
>> Oops, I missed this when I ported the internal version to the
>> net-next version.  Will add it back.
> 
So the net-next wasn't tested? IPv6 connections
itself wouldn't be formed with this missing. As mentioned
already, please test v2 before posting on list.

Regards,
Santosh