From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:16:20 -0700 Message-ID: <20140902141620.2da1f6aa@urahara> References: <1408641747-22199-1-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Johannes Berg To: Johannes Berg Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1408641747-22199-1-git-send-email-johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:22:27 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > + /* RFC 1122 3.3.6: > + * > + * When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address, > + * the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP > + * multicast address. > + * > + * A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via > + * a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify > + * an IP multicast or broadcast destination address. > + * > + * We also do this for link-layer multicast. > + */ > + if ((skb->pkt_type == PACKET_BROADCAST || > + skb->pkt_type == PACKET_MULTICAST) && > + res.type != RTN_BROADCAST) > + goto e_inval; > + I think you need to all multicast packet but not broadcast. The RFC does not specify that you should drop link-layer multicast to a unicast address. There are several clustering products use that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html