1. 05 11月, 2016 1 次提交
    • L
      net: inet: Support UID-based routing in IP protocols. · e2d118a1
      Lorenzo Colitti 提交于
      - Use the UID in routing lookups made by protocol connect() and
        sendmsg() functions.
      - Make sure that routing lookups triggered by incoming packets
        (e.g., Path MTU discovery) take the UID of the socket into
        account.
      - For packets not associated with a userspace socket, (e.g., ping
        replies) use UID 0 inside the user namespace corresponding to
        the network namespace the socket belongs to. This allows
        all namespaces to apply routing and iptables rules to
        kernel-originated traffic in that namespaces by matching UID 0.
        This is better than using the UID of the kernel socket that is
        sending the traffic, because the UID of kernel sockets created
        at namespace creation time (e.g., the per-processor ICMP and
        TCP sockets) is the UID of the user that created the socket,
        which might not be mapped in the namespace.
      
      Tested: compiles allnoconfig, allyesconfig, allmodconfig
      Tested: https://android-review.googlesource.com/253302Signed-off-by: NLorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      e2d118a1
  2. 25 8月, 2014 1 次提交
  3. 14 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  4. 07 12月, 2013 1 次提交
  5. 16 9月, 2013 1 次提交
  6. 06 9月, 2013 1 次提交
    • D
      ipv6:introduce function to find route for redirect · b55b76b2
      Duan Jiong 提交于
      RFC 4861 says that the IP source address of the Redirect is the
      same as the current first-hop router for the specified ICMP
      Destination Address, so the gateway should be taken into
      consideration when we find the route for redirect.
      
      There was once a check in commit
      a6279458 ("NDISC: Search over
      all possible rules on receipt of redirect.") and the check
      went away in commit b94f1c09
      ("ipv6: Use icmpv6_notify() to propagate redirect, instead of
      rt6_redirect()").
      
      The bug is only "exploitable" on layer-2 because the source
      address of the redirect is checked to be a valid link-local
      address but it makes spoofing a lot easier in the same L2
      domain nonetheless.
      
      Thanks very much for Hannes's help.
      Signed-off-by: NDuan Jiong <duanj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
      Acked-by: NHannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      b55b76b2
  7. 12 7月, 2012 1 次提交
  8. 16 6月, 2012 1 次提交
    • D
      ipv6: Handle PMTU in ICMP error handlers. · 81aded24
      David S. Miller 提交于
      One tricky issue on the ipv6 side vs. ipv4 is that the ICMP callouts
      to handle the error pass the 32-bit info cookie in network byte order
      whereas ipv4 passes it around in host byte order.
      
      Like the ipv4 side, we have two helper functions.  One for when we
      have a socket context and one for when we do not.
      
      ip6ip6 tunnels are not handled here, because they handle PMTU events
      by essentially relaying another ICMP packet-too-big message back to
      the original sender.
      
      This patch allows us to get rid of rt6_do_pmtu_disc().  It handles all
      kinds of situations that simply cannot happen when we do the PMTU
      update directly using a fully resolved route.
      
      In fact, the "plen == 128" check in ip6_rt_update_pmtu() can very
      likely be removed or changed into a BUG_ON() check.  We should never
      have a prefixed ipv6 route when we get there.
      
      Another piece of strange history here is that TCP and DCCP, unlike in
      ipv4, never invoke the update_pmtu() method from their ICMP error
      handlers.  This is incredibly astonishing since this is the context
      where we have the most accurate context in which to make a PMTU
      update, namely we have a fully connected socket and associated cached
      socket route.
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      81aded24
  9. 16 5月, 2012 2 次提交
  10. 23 4月, 2011 1 次提交
  11. 23 2月, 2010 1 次提交
  12. 17 2月, 2010 1 次提交
  13. 28 1月, 2010 2 次提交
  14. 15 9月, 2009 1 次提交
  15. 23 6月, 2009 1 次提交
  16. 26 11月, 2008 2 次提交
  17. 30 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  18. 29 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  19. 27 7月, 2008 1 次提交
    • D
      ipcomp: Fix warnings after ipcomp consolidation. · 2c3abab7
      David S. Miller 提交于
      net/ipv4/ipcomp.c: In function ‘ipcomp4_init_state’:
      net/ipv4/ipcomp.c:109: warning: unused variable ‘calg_desc’
      net/ipv4/ipcomp.c:108: warning: unused variable ‘ipcd’
      net/ipv4/ipcomp.c:107: warning: ‘err’ may be used uninitialized in this function
      net/ipv6/ipcomp6.c: In function ‘ipcomp6_init_state’:
      net/ipv6/ipcomp6.c:139: warning: unused variable ‘calg_desc’
      net/ipv6/ipcomp6.c:138: warning: unused variable ‘ipcd’
      net/ipv6/ipcomp6.c:137: warning: ‘err’ may be used uninitialized in this function
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      2c3abab7
  20. 25 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  21. 19 4月, 2008 1 次提交
  22. 29 2月, 2008 1 次提交
  23. 01 2月, 2008 2 次提交
  24. 29 1月, 2008 1 次提交
    • H
      [IPSEC]: Forbid BEET + ipcomp for now · e40b3286
      Herbert Xu 提交于
      While BEET can theoretically work with IPComp the current code can't
      do that because it tries to construct a BEET mode tunnel type which
      doesn't (and cannot) exist.  In fact as it is it won't even attach a
      tunnel object at all for BEET which is bogus.
      
      To support this fully we'd also need to change the policy checks on
      input to recognise a plain tunnel as a legal variant of an optional
      BEET transform.
      
      This patch simply fails such constructions for now.
      Signed-off-by: NHerbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      e40b3286
  25. 07 11月, 2007 1 次提交
  26. 02 11月, 2007 1 次提交
  27. 18 10月, 2007 1 次提交
  28. 11 10月, 2007 5 次提交
  29. 11 7月, 2007 1 次提交
  30. 26 4月, 2007 3 次提交