[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9844f3ce486c5aff8547e79abf4344488db6568.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 15:11:07 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/10] udp/ipv6: move pending section of
udpv6_sendmsg
On Fri, 2022-05-13 at 16:26 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> Move up->pending section of udpv6_sendmsg() to the beginning of the
> function. Even though it require some code duplication for sin6 parsing,
> it clearly localises the pending handling in one place, removes an extra
> if and more importantly will prepare the code for further patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
> ---
> net/ipv6/udp.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/udp.c b/net/ipv6/udp.c
> index 11d44ed46953..85bff1252f5c 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/udp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/udp.c
> @@ -1318,6 +1318,46 @@ int udpv6_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
> ipc6.sockc.tsflags = sk->sk_tsflags;
> ipc6.sockc.mark = sk->sk_mark;
>
> + /* Rough check on arithmetic overflow,
> + better check is made in ip6_append_data().
> + */
> + if (unlikely(len > INT_MAX - sizeof(struct udphdr)))
> + return -EMSGSIZE;
> +
> + getfrag = is_udplite ? udplite_getfrag : ip_generic_getfrag;
> +
> + /* There are pending frames. */
> + if (up->pending) {
> + if (up->pending == AF_INET)
> + return udp_sendmsg(sk, msg, len);
> +
> + /* Do a quick destination sanity check before corking. */
> + if (sin6) {
> + if (msg->msg_namelen < offsetof(struct sockaddr, sa_data))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (sin6->sin6_family == AF_INET6) {
> + if (msg->msg_namelen < SIN6_LEN_RFC2133)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (ipv6_addr_any(&sin6->sin6_addr) &&
> + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&np->saddr))
> + return -EINVAL;
It looks like 'any' destination with ipv4 mapped source is now
rejected, while the existing code accept it.
/P
Powered by blists - more mailing lists