Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 7254] New: leaving IP multicast group with incorrect imr_address unexpectedly succeeded

Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 7254] New: leaving IP multicast group with incorrect imr_address unexpectedly succeeded

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 07:40:04 -0700
bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:

> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7254
> 
>            Summary: leaving IP multicast group with incorrect imr_address
>                     unexpectedly succeeded
>     Kernel Version: 2.6.18
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>              Owner: shemminger@osdl.org
>          Submitter: Konstantin.Petrov@oktetlabs.ru
>                 CC: Alexandra.Kossovsky@oktetlabs.ru
> 
> 
> Most recent kernel where this bug did not occur:
> Distribution:
> Hardware Environment: P4 PC
> Software Environment:
> Problem Description:
> 
> When trying to leave IP multicast group with
> incorrect imr_address we expect function
> setsockopt(s, SOL_IP, IP_DROP_MEMBERSHIP, ip_mreq)
> to fail with ERRNO EADDRNOTAVAIL, but it succeeds.
> 
> Steps to reproduce:
> 1) Join socket to IP multicast group
> 2) Using incorrerct imr_address try to leave 
>    IP multicast group
> 
> Note:
> Probably function ip_mc_leave_group(...) in the
> file /net/ipv4/igmp.c "forgets" to check imr_address when
> imr_ifindex is OK.
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 7254] New: leaving IP multicast group with incorrect imr_address unexpectedly succeeded

[David Stevens]

If the index is set, it doesn't look up the address (which may be 
expensive).
If you want to look up by address, the index must be 0.

I wouldn't  call that a bug.

                                        +-DLS

Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 7254] New: leaving IP multicast group with incorrect imr_address unexpectedly succeeded

[David Miller]

From: David Stevens <dlstevens@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:33:07 -0700

> If the index is set, it doesn't look up the address (which may be 
> expensive).
> If you want to look up by address, the index must be 0.
> 
> I wouldn't  call that a bug.

Me neither, Andrew please close this. :)