From: Kevin Dwyer <kevin@pheared.net>
To: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Cc: linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org
Subject: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:01:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031005130154.5bd9d182.kevin@pheared.net> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --]
Hello,
We have come across something that may be a bug, unless this behavior
was intentional.
The problem can be simulated by creating a socket, setting
SO_BINDTODEVICE, and binding to a port. Then, in a separate process we
attempt to bind to the same port but without the SO_BINDTODEVICE option.
The expected behavior is to get EINVAL because the port is already
bound by a prior call. However, it succeeds, and the second process
steals the first process' packets.
The likely code in question resides in net/ipv4/udp.c:
for (sk2 = udp_hash[snum & (UDP_HTABLE_SIZE - 1)];
sk2 != NULL;
sk2 = sk2->next) {
if (sk2->num == snum &&
sk2 != sk &&
sk2->bound_dev_if == sk->bound_dev_if &&
(!sk2->rcv_saddr ||
!sk->rcv_saddr ||
sk2->rcv_saddr == sk->rcv_saddr) &&
(!sk2->reuse || !sk->reuse))
goto fail;
}
The condition (sk2->bound_dev_if == sk->bound_dev_if) will fail because
sk2->bound_dev_if will be the ifindex of the interface we bound to, and
sk->bound_dev_if will be 0, since we didn't bind to a specific
interface.
Lars Ellenberg suggests something like:
| (!sk2->bound_dev_if ||
| !sk->bound_dev_if ||
| sk2->bound_dev_if == sk->bound_dev_if) &&
Which on its face appears to clear the bug. I don't see any obvious
downsides to it either, but this is why I'm here.
So, is this intentional or a bug?
Thanks.
--
- kpd
"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success." - Anonymous
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2003-10-05 17:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-10-05 17:01 Kevin Dwyer [this message]
2003-10-06 22:50 ` Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) Casey Carter
2003-10-07 1:06 ` Kevin Dwyer
2003-10-07 20:51 ` Casey Carter
2003-10-07 21:08 ` Kevin Dwyer
2003-10-07 21:49 ` Casey Carter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20031005130154.5bd9d182.kevin@pheared.net \
--to=kevin@pheared.net \
--cc=linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).