Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/2] udp: add sk opt to allow sending pkt with src 0.0.0.0

[Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>]

Le 09/11/2013 15:46, Julian Anastasov a écrit :
>
> 	Hello,
>
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>
>> This feature allows to a send packets with address source set to 0.0.0.0 even if
>> an ip address is available on another interface.
>>
>> It's useful for DHCP client, to allow them to use UDP sockets and be compliant
>> with the RFC2131, Section 4.1:
>>
>> 4.1 Constructing and sending DHCP messages
>> ...
>>     DHCP messages broadcast by a client prior to that client obtaining
>>     its IP address must have the source address field in the IP header
>>     set to 0.
>>
>> Based on a previous work from
>> Guillaume Gaudonville <guillaume.gaudonville@6wind.com>.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
>> index 89909dd730dd..f58945187dbd 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
>
> ...
>
>> +	if (up->src_any && sk->sk_bound_dev_if) {
>> +		struct net_device *dev;
>> +		struct in_device *in_dev;
>> +
>> +		rcu_read_lock();
>> +		dev = dev_get_by_index_rcu(sock_net(sk), sk->sk_bound_dev_if);
>> +		in_dev = dev ? __in_dev_get_rcu(dev) : NULL;
>> +		if (!inet_confirm_addr(sock_net(sk), in_dev, 0, 0,
>> +				       RT_SCOPE_HOST))
>
> 	I don't have an opinion about UDP_SRC_ANY, just some
> comments...
>
> 	Can a simple !in_dev->ifa_list check replace the
> !inet_confirm_addr call? Looking at __inet_insert_ifa()
> it seems only 0.0.0.0 does not add an ifa. Long ago
> adding 0.0.0.0 was a way to create in_dev for dev but
> now in_dev is created on device registration, i.e. even
> before addresses are added.
>
> 	For the first patch, may be it is not needed.
> We have two choices:
>
> 1. Do not change args and just fix comments. Of course,
> it is tricky to use this function by using scope instead
> of in_dev as a key for device-specific matching because
> such interface is confusing.
I hesitated to take this choice, but I think that keeping the
original behavior is better.

>
> 2. Add 'net' arg and use in_dev as explained in my
> previous email. Not sure if changing args of exported
> function is acceptable.
FWIK, it's not a problem.


Regards,
Nicolas