From: Wang Chen <wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RAW6: Do not allow set IPV6_CHECKSUM for ICMPv6 socket
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:18:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <480B0A59.7000408@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080420.003328.45324753.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller said the following on 2008-4-20 15:33:
> From: Wang Chen <wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:18:52 +0800
>
>> Why not remove the RFC-breaking code from applications?
>
> Because once applications exist and are deployed we cannot break them
> with careless kernel changes. A user should not get a broken
> traceroute6 binary just because he upgrades his kernel, that's
> a bug.
>
> The RFC is not a set of laws that must be followed under all
> circumstances. In this case it is worse to break applications on
> people's systems than be compliant to some standard.
>
Yes. I agree with you that the RFC is not a law and we don't want to
break applications by changing kernel.
So, how about the following approach which don't break iputils.
---
As RFC3542 mentions: An attempt to set IPV6_CHECKSUM for an ICMPv6 socket
will fail. But there are some legacy applications which set the option to
enable IPV6_CHECKSUM for ICMPv6 socket.
To forbid disabling checksum for ICMPv6 socket, add a check for that in
do_rawv6_setsockopt().
Signed-off-by: Wang Chen <wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
net/ipv6/raw.c | 6 ++++++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv6/raw.c b/net/ipv6/raw.c
index 0a6fbc1..0be4eb3 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/raw.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/raw.c
@@ -994,6 +994,12 @@ static int do_rawv6_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
switch (optname) {
case IPV6_CHECKSUM:
+ /* RFC3542: An attempt to set IPV6_CHECKSUM for an
+ * ICMPv6 socket will fail. But for legacy application
+ * compliance, allow offset=2 option value.
+ */
+ if (inet_sk(sk)->num == IPPROTO_ICMPV6 && val != 2)
+ return(-EINVAL);
/* You may get strange result with a positive odd offset;
RFC2292bis agrees with me. */
if (val > 0 && (val&1))
--
1.5.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-20 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-18 10:32 [PATCH] RAW6: Do not allow set IPV6_CHECKSUM for ICMPv6 socket Wang Chen
2008-04-18 11:09 ` David Miller
2008-04-20 7:18 ` Wang Chen
2008-04-20 7:33 ` David Miller
2008-04-20 9:18 ` Wang Chen [this message]
2008-04-20 9:38 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
2008-04-20 9:37 ` David Miller
[not found] ` <dd9c5f130804200342r4bdc938fq4af15c9747ba6e06@mail.gmail.com>
2008-04-24 10:48 ` David Miller
2008-04-24 12:19 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
2008-04-24 15:26 ` Rémi Denis-Courmont
2008-04-25 1:03 ` Wang Chen
2008-04-25 4:46 ` David Miller
2008-04-25 4:31 ` David Miller
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=480B0A59.7000408@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/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).