Hello, Mr yoshfuji
Thanks for your patch. I think maybe we checking oif first is better,
and WARN_ON in function rt6_score_route().
The following is my patch
Signed-off-by: Wei Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -ruN old/net/ipv6/route.c new/net/ipv6/route.c
--- old/net/ipv6/route.c 2007-02-16 13:46:33.000000000 -0500
+++ new/net/ipv6/route.c 2007-02-16 13:44:27.000000000 -0500
@@ -309,12 +309,21 @@
static int inline rt6_check_dev(struct rt6_info *rt, int oif)
{
struct net_device *dev = rt->rt6i_dev;
- if (!oif || dev->ifindex == oif)
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (!oif)
return 2;
+
if ((dev->flags & IFF_LOOPBACK) &&
rt->rt6i_idev && rt->rt6i_idev->dev->ifindex == oif)
- return 1;
- return 0;
+ ret = 1;
+ else
+ return 0;
+
+ if (dev->ifindex == oif)
+ return 2;
+
+ return ret;
}
static int inline rt6_check_neigh(struct rt6_info *rt)
@@ -339,8 +348,11 @@
int m, n;
m = rt6_check_dev(rt, oif);
- if (!m && (strict & RT6_LOOKUP_F_IFACE))
+ if (!m && (strict & RT6_LOOKUP_F_IFACE)) {
+ WARN_ON(rt->rt6i_dev->flags & IFF_LOOPBACK);
return -1;
+ }
+
#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
m |= IPV6_DECODE_PREF(IPV6_EXTRACT_PREF(rt->rt6i_flags)) << 2;
#endif
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 13:00 +0900, Wei Dong wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 21 Feb 2007
> 09:57:12 -0500), weidong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > The following is the figure.
> :
> > Host eth0: fe80::200:ff:fe00:100
> > Router eth0: fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa0a
> > Router eth1: fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa14
>
> Other network
> |
> | eth1
> +----+----+
> | Router |
> +----+----+
> | eth0
> |
> | eth0
> +----+----+
> | Host |
> +---------+
>
> > We ping6 from host's eth0 to Router's eth1. Echo Request's src addr =
> > fe80::200:ff:fe00:100, dst addr = fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa14. And Kernel
> > just send ICMPv6 redirect packet and then forward the Echo Request to
> > router's eth0. If we run tcpdump on Host eth0, we can receive the ICMPv6
> > Redirect packet. And if we send NA which advertises
>
> This is correct, and intended behavior.
>
> > fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa14 MAC address(this is very easy for v6eval tool),
> > we also can receive the forwarded Echo Request(src:fe80::200:ff:fe00:100
> > dst is fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa14).
>
> Well, this is known issue, actually.
>
> While this cannot happen in normal operation, we should NOT accept
> such traffic. :-)
>
> Here is the (untested) fix.
>
> -----
> [IPV6] ROUTE: Do not accept traffic for link-local address on different
> interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> index 5f0043c..a7468e0 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> @@ -311,12 +311,19 @@ static inline void rt6_probe(struct rt6_info *rt)
> static int inline rt6_check_dev(struct rt6_info *rt, int oif)
> {
> struct net_device *dev = rt->rt6i_dev;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (dev->flags & IFF_LOOPBACK) {
> + if (!WARN_ON(rt->rt6i_idev == NULL) &&
> + rt->rt6i_idev->dev->ifindex == oif)
> + ret = 1;
> + else
> + return 0;
> + }
> if (!oif || dev->ifindex == oif)
> return 2;
> - if ((dev->flags & IFF_LOOPBACK) &&
> - rt->rt6i_idev && rt->rt6i_idev->dev->ifindex == oif)
> - return 1;
> - return 0;
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static int inline rt6_check_neigh(struct rt6_info *rt)
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
