Skip to content

K
kernel_linux

OpenHarmony / kernel_linux
上一次同步 大约 4 年

通知 14
Star 8
Fork 2
K
kernel_linux
切换分支/标签
  1. 13 2月, 2007 7 次提交
  3. 12 2月, 2007 1 次提交
  5. 11 2月, 2007 4 次提交
  7. 09 2月, 2007 16 次提交
  9. 31 1月, 2007 2 次提交
    • L
      [IPV6]: fix BUG of ndisc_send_redirect() · 29556526
      由 Li Yewang 提交于 
        When I tested IPv6 redirect function about kernel 2.6.19.1, and found
that the kernel can send redirect packets whose target address is global
address, and the target is not the actual endpoint of communication.

  But the criteria conform to RFC2461, the target address defines as
following:

  Target Address An IP address that is a better first hop to use for
                 he ICMP Destination Address.  When the target is
                 the actual endpoint of communication, i.e., the
                 destination is a neighbor, the Target Address field
                 MUST contain the same value as the ICMP Destination
                 Address field.  Otherwise the target is a better
                 first-hop router and the Target Address MUST be the
                 router's link-local address so that hosts can
                 uniquely identify routers.

According to this definition, when a router redirect to a host, the
target address either the better first-hop router's link-local address
or the same as the ICMP destination address field. But the function of
ndisc_send_redirect() in net/ipv6/ndisc.c, does not check the target
address correctly.

There is another definition about receive Redirect message in RFC2461:

8.1.  Validation of Redirect Messages

   A host MUST silently discard any received Redirect message that does
   not satisfy all of the following validity checks:
   ......
   - The ICMP Target Address is either a link-local address (when
     redirected to a router) or the same as the ICMP Destination
     Address (when redirected to the on-link destination).
   ......

And the receive redirect function of ndisc_redirect_rcv() implemented
this definition, checks the target address correctly.
    if (ipv6_addr_equal(dest, target)) {
        on_link = 1;
    } else if (!(ipv6_addr_type(target) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL)) {
        ND_PRINTK2(KERN_WARNING
               "ICMPv6 Redirect: target address is not link-local.\n");
        return;
    }

So, I think the send redirect function must check the target address
also.
Signed-off-by: NLi Yewang <lyw@nanjing-fnst.com>
Acked-by: NYOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      29556526
    • N
      [IPV6]: Fix up some CONFIG typos · fa03ef38
      由 Neil Horman 提交于 
      Signed-off-by: NNeil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      fa03ef38
  11. 26 1月, 2007 1 次提交
  13. 24 1月, 2007 2 次提交
  15. 10 1月, 2007 2 次提交
  17. 09 1月, 2007 1 次提交
  19. 05 1月, 2007 1 次提交
  21. 18 12月, 2006 1 次提交
  23. 14 12月, 2006 2 次提交
    • K
      [IPV6]: Make fib6_node subtree depend on IPV6_SUBTREES · 8bce65b9
      由 Kim Nordlund 提交于 
      Make fib6_node 'subtree' depend on IPV6_SUBTREES.
Signed-off-by: NKim Nordlund <kim.nordlund@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      8bce65b9
    • B
      [IPV6]: Fix IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS getsockopt(). · befffe90
      由 Brian Haley 提交于 
      > Relevant standard (RFC 3493) notes:
>
>    The IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS option may be used with getsockopt() to
>    determine the hop limit value that the system will use for subsequent
>    unicast packets sent via that socket.
>
> I don't reckon -1 could be the hop limit value.

-1 means un-initialized.

> IMHO, the value from
> case 1 (if socket is connected to some destination), otherwise case 2
> (if bound to a scope interface) or ultimately the default hop limit
> ought to be returned instead, as it will be most often correct, while
> the current behavior is always wrong, unless setsockopt() has been used
> first. I don't if some people may think doing a route lookup in
> getsockopt might be overly expensive, but at least the two other cases
> should be ok, particularly the last one.

The following patch seems to work for me, but this code has behaved this
way for a while, so don't know if it will break any existing apps.
Signed-off-by: NBrian Haley <brian.haley@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      befffe90