2019-02-26, 11:48:54 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Hi David,
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 07:23:33PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 2/25/19 7:17 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > > I also thought about this issue. Currently we didn't check the ipproto in
> > > both
> > > IPv4 and IPv6. You can set icmp in ip6 rules or icmpv6 in ipv4 rules.
> > > This looks don't make any serious problem. It's just a user
> > > mis-configuration,
> > > the kernel check the proto number and won't match normal IP/IPv6 headers.
> > >
> > > But yes, we should make it more strict, do you think if I should add a new
> > > rtm_getroute_parse_ip6_proto() function, or just add a family parameter
> > > in previous function?
> >
> > I see now. rtm_getroute_parse_ip_proto is used for ipv4 and ipv6. For v4
> > IPPROTO_ICMPV6 should not be allowed and for v6 IPPROTO_ICMP should
> > fail. You could a version argument to rtm_getroute_parse_ip_proto and
> > fail as needed.
>
> Sorry I didn't get here. Do you mean add an IPv6 version of
> rtm_getroute_parse_ip_proto?
Add an argument to rtm_getroute_parse_ip_proto that tells what IP
version to use, and then handle IPPROTO_ICMP/IPPROTO_ICMPV6 depending
on that.
For example:
int rtm_getroute_parse_ip_proto(struct nlattr *attr, u8 *ip_proto,
bool ipv6, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
And pass false from ipv4/true from ipv6.
--
Sabrina
