Re: route add ::/0 ...
Let me updated the diff.
On Mon, 06 Jul 2020 17:54:30 +0900 (JST)
YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 02:42:02 +0200
> Klemens Nanni wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:00:30AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>>> inet_makenetandmask() had required another treatment.
>>>
>>> Also -prefixlen 0 for -inet has a bug
>>>
>>> % doas ./obj/route -T100 add -inet 0.0.0.0 -prefixlen 0 127.0.0.1
>>> add net 0.0.0.0: gateway 127.0.0.1
>>> % netstat -nrf inet -T 100
>>> Routing tables
>>>
>>> Internet:
>>> DestinationGatewayFlags Refs Use Mtu Prio
>>> Iface
>>> 0.0.0.0/32 127.0.0.1 UGS00 32768 8
>>> lo100
>>>
>>> /0 becomes /32. The diff following also fixes the problem.
>> Yes, this looks correct to me; regress is also happy (again).
>>
>> OK kn
>
> Thanks,
>
> I'm going to commit the diff. ok or comments, are still welcome.
>
>
> Stop using make_addr() which trims trailing zeros of the netmask, set
> family and length field. This fixes route(8) to handle "::/0"
> properly. Also fix "route add -inet 0.0.0.0 -prefixlen 0 (gateway)"
> to work properly.
>
> Index: sbin/route/route.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/route/route.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.247
> diff -u -p -r1.247 route.c
> --- sbin/route/route.c15 Jan 2020 10:26:25 - 1.247
> +++ sbin/route/route.c6 Jul 2020 08:45:06 -
(snip)
> @@ -781,12 +780,9 @@ inet_makenetandmask(u_int32_t net, struc
> sin->sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(net);
> sin = &so_mask.sin;
> sin->sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(mask);
> - sin->sin_len = 0;
> - sin->sin_family = 0;
> + sin->sin_family = AF_INET;
> cp = (char *)(&sin->sin_addr + 1);
> - while (*--cp == '\0' && cp > (char *)sin)
> - continue;
> - sin->sin_len = 1 + cp - (char *)sin;
> + sin->sin_len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in);
> }
>
> /*
"cp" becomes unused. The updated diff removes "cp" as well.
Index: sbin/route/route.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/route/route.c,v
retrieving revision 1.247
diff -u -p -r1.247 route.c
--- sbin/route/route.c 15 Jan 2020 10:26:25 - 1.247
+++ sbin/route/route.c 6 Jul 2020 08:57:25 -
@@ -107,7 +107,6 @@ void print_rtmsg(struct rt_msghdr *, in
voidpmsg_common(struct rt_msghdr *);
voidpmsg_addrs(char *, int);
voidbprintf(FILE *, int, char *);
-voidmask_addr(union sockunion *, union sockunion *, int);
int getaddr(int, int, char *, struct hostent **);
voidgetmplslabel(char *, int);
int rtmsg(int, int, int, uint8_t);
@@ -767,7 +766,6 @@ void
inet_makenetandmask(u_int32_t net, struct sockaddr_in *sin, int bits)
{
u_int32_t mask;
- char *cp;
rtm_addrs |= RTA_NETMASK;
if (bits == 0 && net == 0)
@@ -781,12 +779,8 @@ inet_makenetandmask(u_int32_t net, struc
sin->sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(net);
sin = &so_mask.sin;
sin->sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(mask);
- sin->sin_len = 0;
- sin->sin_family = 0;
- cp = (char *)(&sin->sin_addr + 1);
- while (*--cp == '\0' && cp > (char *)sin)
- continue;
- sin->sin_len = 1 + cp - (char *)sin;
+ sin->sin_family = AF_INET;
+ sin->sin_len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in);
}
/*
@@ -1001,7 +995,8 @@ prefixlen(int af, char *s)
memset(&so_mask, 0, sizeof(so_mask));
so_mask.sin.sin_family = AF_INET;
so_mask.sin.sin_len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in);
- so_mask.sin.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(0x << (32 - len));
+ if (len != 0)
+ so_mask.sin.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(0x << (32 -
len));
break;
case AF_INET6:
so_mask.sin6.sin6_family = AF_INET6;
@@ -1088,8 +1083,6 @@ rtmsg(int cmd, int flags, int fmask, uin
rtm.rtm_mpls = mpls_flags;
rtm.rtm_hdrlen = sizeof(rtm);
- if (rtm_addrs & RTA_NETMASK)
- mask_addr(&so_dst, &so_mask, RTA_DST);
/* store addresses in ascending order of RTA values */
NEXTADDR(RTA_DST, so_dst);
NEXTADDR(RTA_GATEWAY, so_gate);
@@ -1118,34 +,6 @@ rtmsg(int cmd, int flags, int fmask, uin
}
#undef rtm
return (0);
-}
-
-void
-mask_addr(union sockunion *addr, union sockunion *mask, int which)
-{
- int olen = mask->sa.sa_len;
- char *cp1 = olen + (char *)mask, *cp2;
-
- for (mask->sa.sa_len = 0; cp1 > (char *)mask; )
- if (*--cp1 != '\0') {
- mask->sa.sa_len = 1 + cp1 - (char *)mask;
- break;
- }
- if ((rtm_addrs & which) == 0)
- return;
- switch (addr->sa.sa_family) {
- case AF_INET:
- case AF_INET6:
- case AF_UNSPEC:
- return;
-
Re: route add ::/0 ...
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 02:42:02 +0200
Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:00:30AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>> inet_makenetandmask() had required another treatment.
>>
>> Also -prefixlen 0 for -inet has a bug
>>
>> % doas ./obj/route -T100 add -inet 0.0.0.0 -prefixlen 0 127.0.0.1
>> add net 0.0.0.0: gateway 127.0.0.1
>> % netstat -nrf inet -T 100
>> Routing tables
>>
>> Internet:
>> DestinationGatewayFlags Refs Use Mtu Prio
>> Iface
>> 0.0.0.0/32 127.0.0.1 UGS00 32768 8
>> lo100
>>
>> /0 becomes /32. The diff following also fixes the problem.
> Yes, this looks correct to me; regress is also happy (again).
>
> OK kn
Thanks,
I'm going to commit the diff. ok or comments, are still welcome.
Stop using make_addr() which trims trailing zeros of the netmask, set
family and length field. This fixes route(8) to handle "::/0"
properly. Also fix "route add -inet 0.0.0.0 -prefixlen 0 (gateway)"
to work properly.
Index: sbin/route/route.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/route/route.c,v
retrieving revision 1.247
diff -u -p -r1.247 route.c
--- sbin/route/route.c 15 Jan 2020 10:26:25 - 1.247
+++ sbin/route/route.c 6 Jul 2020 08:45:06 -
@@ -107,7 +107,6 @@ void print_rtmsg(struct rt_msghdr *, in
voidpmsg_common(struct rt_msghdr *);
voidpmsg_addrs(char *, int);
voidbprintf(FILE *, int, char *);
-voidmask_addr(union sockunion *, union sockunion *, int);
int getaddr(int, int, char *, struct hostent **);
voidgetmplslabel(char *, int);
int rtmsg(int, int, int, uint8_t);
@@ -781,12 +780,9 @@ inet_makenetandmask(u_int32_t net, struc
sin->sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(net);
sin = &so_mask.sin;
sin->sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(mask);
- sin->sin_len = 0;
- sin->sin_family = 0;
+ sin->sin_family = AF_INET;
cp = (char *)(&sin->sin_addr + 1);
- while (*--cp == '\0' && cp > (char *)sin)
- continue;
- sin->sin_len = 1 + cp - (char *)sin;
+ sin->sin_len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in);
}
/*
@@ -1001,7 +997,8 @@ prefixlen(int af, char *s)
memset(&so_mask, 0, sizeof(so_mask));
so_mask.sin.sin_family = AF_INET;
so_mask.sin.sin_len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in);
- so_mask.sin.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(0x << (32 - len));
+ if (len != 0)
+ so_mask.sin.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(0x << (32 -
len));
break;
case AF_INET6:
so_mask.sin6.sin6_family = AF_INET6;
@@ -1088,8 +1085,6 @@ rtmsg(int cmd, int flags, int fmask, uin
rtm.rtm_mpls = mpls_flags;
rtm.rtm_hdrlen = sizeof(rtm);
- if (rtm_addrs & RTA_NETMASK)
- mask_addr(&so_dst, &so_mask, RTA_DST);
/* store addresses in ascending order of RTA values */
NEXTADDR(RTA_DST, so_dst);
NEXTADDR(RTA_GATEWAY, so_gate);
@@ -1118,34 +1113,6 @@ rtmsg(int cmd, int flags, int fmask, uin
}
#undef rtm
return (0);
-}
-
-void
-mask_addr(union sockunion *addr, union sockunion *mask, int which)
-{
- int olen = mask->sa.sa_len;
- char *cp1 = olen + (char *)mask, *cp2;
-
- for (mask->sa.sa_len = 0; cp1 > (char *)mask; )
- if (*--cp1 != '\0') {
- mask->sa.sa_len = 1 + cp1 - (char *)mask;
- break;
- }
- if ((rtm_addrs & which) == 0)
- return;
- switch (addr->sa.sa_family) {
- case AF_INET:
- case AF_INET6:
- case AF_UNSPEC:
- return;
- }
- cp1 = mask->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)addr;
- cp2 = addr->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)addr;
- while (cp2 > cp1)
- *--cp2 = '\0';
- cp2 = mask->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)mask;
- while (cp1 > addr->sa.sa_data)
- *--cp1 &= *--cp2;
}
char *msgtypes[] = {
Re: route add ::/0 ...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:00:30AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > inet_makenetandmask() had required another treatment. > > Also -prefixlen 0 for -inet has a bug > > % doas ./obj/route -T100 add -inet 0.0.0.0 -prefixlen 0 127.0.0.1 > add net 0.0.0.0: gateway 127.0.0.1 > % netstat -nrf inet -T 100 > Routing tables > > Internet: > DestinationGatewayFlags Refs Use Mtu Prio Iface > 0.0.0.0/32 127.0.0.1 UGS00 32768 8 lo100 > > /0 becomes /32. The diff following also fixes the problem. Yes, this looks correct to me; regress is also happy (again). OK kn
Re: route add ::/0 ...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 19:18:17 +0200
Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:55:10PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>> The function mask_addr() doesn't mask address for IPv4 and IPv6. Does
>> any address family other than IPv4 or IPv6 require #1142:1148? The
>> function seems to just trim the trailing zero. Is it neccesaary? And
>> it causes the confusion on the kernel. How about deleting
>> mask_addr()?
>>
>> The diff following also fixes the problem.
> Removing it breaks IPv4 default routes:
>
> # ifconfig lo1 rdomain 1 127.1.1.1
> # ./obj/route -nT1 add 0.0.0.0/0 127.1.1.1
> add net 0.0.0.0/0: gateway 127.1.1.1: Invalid argument
> # route -nT1 add 0.0.0.0/0 127.1.1.1
> add net 0.0.0.0/0: gateway 127.1.1.1
Thanks,
inet_makenetandmask() had required another treatment.
Also -prefixlen 0 for -inet has a bug
% doas ./obj/route -T100 add -inet 0.0.0.0 -prefixlen 0 127.0.0.1
add net 0.0.0.0: gateway 127.0.0.1
% netstat -nrf inet -T 100
Routing tables
Internet:
DestinationGatewayFlags Refs Use Mtu Prio Iface
0.0.0.0/32 127.0.0.1 UGS00 32768 8 lo100
/0 becomes /32. The diff following also fixes the problem.
diff --git a/sbin/route/route.c b/sbin/route/route.c
index 9e43d8e89b6..532a918148d 100644
--- a/sbin/route/route.c
+++ b/sbin/route/route.c
@@ -107,7 +107,6 @@ void print_rtmsg(struct rt_msghdr *, int);
voidpmsg_common(struct rt_msghdr *);
voidpmsg_addrs(char *, int);
voidbprintf(FILE *, int, char *);
-voidmask_addr(union sockunion *, union sockunion *, int);
int getaddr(int, int, char *, struct hostent **);
voidgetmplslabel(char *, int);
int rtmsg(int, int, int, uint8_t);
@@ -781,12 +780,9 @@ inet_makenetandmask(u_int32_t net, struct sockaddr_in
*sin, int bits)
sin->sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(net);
sin = &so_mask.sin;
sin->sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(mask);
- sin->sin_len = 0;
- sin->sin_family = 0;
+ sin->sin_family = AF_INET;
cp = (char *)(&sin->sin_addr + 1);
- while (*--cp == '\0' && cp > (char *)sin)
- continue;
- sin->sin_len = 1 + cp - (char *)sin;
+ sin->sin_len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in);
}
/*
@@ -1001,7 +997,8 @@ prefixlen(int af, char *s)
memset(&so_mask, 0, sizeof(so_mask));
so_mask.sin.sin_family = AF_INET;
so_mask.sin.sin_len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in);
- so_mask.sin.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(0x << (32 - len));
+ if (len != 0)
+ so_mask.sin.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(0x << (32 -
len));
break;
case AF_INET6:
so_mask.sin6.sin6_family = AF_INET6;
@@ -1088,8 +1085,6 @@ rtmsg(int cmd, int flags, int fmask, uint8_t prio)
rtm.rtm_mpls = mpls_flags;
rtm.rtm_hdrlen = sizeof(rtm);
- if (rtm_addrs & RTA_NETMASK)
- mask_addr(&so_dst, &so_mask, RTA_DST);
/* store addresses in ascending order of RTA values */
NEXTADDR(RTA_DST, so_dst);
NEXTADDR(RTA_GATEWAY, so_gate);
@@ -1120,34 +1115,6 @@ rtmsg(int cmd, int flags, int fmask, uint8_t prio)
return (0);
}
-void
-mask_addr(union sockunion *addr, union sockunion *mask, int which)
-{
- int olen = mask->sa.sa_len;
- char *cp1 = olen + (char *)mask, *cp2;
-
- for (mask->sa.sa_len = 0; cp1 > (char *)mask; )
- if (*--cp1 != '\0') {
- mask->sa.sa_len = 1 + cp1 - (char *)mask;
- break;
- }
- if ((rtm_addrs & which) == 0)
- return;
- switch (addr->sa.sa_family) {
- case AF_INET:
- case AF_INET6:
- case AF_UNSPEC:
- return;
- }
- cp1 = mask->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)addr;
- cp2 = addr->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)addr;
- while (cp2 > cp1)
- *--cp2 = '\0';
- cp2 = mask->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)mask;
- while (cp1 > addr->sa.sa_data)
- *--cp1 &= *--cp2;
-}
-
char *msgtypes[] = {
"",
"RTM_ADD: Add Route",
Re: route add ::/0 ...
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:55:10PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > The function mask_addr() doesn't mask address for IPv4 and IPv6. Does > any address family other than IPv4 or IPv6 require #1142:1148? The > function seems to just trim the trailing zero. Is it neccesaary? And > it causes the confusion on the kernel. How about deleting > mask_addr()? > > The diff following also fixes the problem. Removing it breaks IPv4 default routes: # ifconfig lo1 rdomain 1 127.1.1.1 # ./obj/route -nT1 add 0.0.0.0/0 127.1.1.1 add net 0.0.0.0/0: gateway 127.1.1.1: Invalid argument # route -nT1 add 0.0.0.0/0 127.1.1.1 add net 0.0.0.0/0: gateway 127.1.1.1
Re: route add ::/0 ...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 18:45:07 +0900 (JST)
YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:12:23 +0200
> Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>> On 28/06/20(Sun) 20:41, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> When "::/0" is used as "default",
>>>
>>> # route add ::/0 fe80::1%em0
>>> add net ::/0: gateway fe80::1%em0: Invalid argument
>>>
>>> route command trims the sockaddr to { .len = 2, .family = AF_INET6 }
>>> for "::/0", but rtable_satoplen() refuses it. I think it should be
>>> accepted.
>>
>> rtable_satoplen() is used in many places, not just in the socket parsing
>> code used by route(8). I don't know what side effects can be introduced
>> by this change.
>>
>> Why is IPv6 different from IPv4 when it comes to the default route?
>
> Diferent functions are used. route(8) uses inet_makenetandmask() to
> create a sockaddr for IPv4 prefix length and uses prefixlen() for IPv6
> prefix length. "/0" results:
>
> IPv4
> { .len = 1, .family = 0, ... }
> IPv6
> { .len = 2, .family = AF_INET6, ... }
I'm sorry this is not correct. It is actually
IPv6
{ .len = 28, .family = AF_INET6, ... }
> Next, route(8) uses mask_addr() to trim the tailing zeros.
>
> 1129 void
> 1130 mask_addr(union sockunion *addr, union sockunion *mask, int which)
> 1131 {
> 1132 int olen = mask->sa.sa_len;
> 1133 char *cp1 = olen + (char *)mask, *cp2;
> 1134
> 1135 for (mask->sa.sa_len = 0; cp1 > (char *)mask; )
> 1136 if (*--cp1 != '\0') {
> 1137 mask->sa.sa_len = 1 + cp1 - (char *)mask;
> 1138 break;
> 1139 }
>
> See #1135 carefully. As the results, the sockaddrs become:
>
> IPv4
> { .len = 0, .family = 0, ... }
> IPv6
> { .len = 2, .family = AF_INET6, ... }
I'm start wondering what the mask_addr() is for.
1123 void
1124 mask_addr(union sockunion *addr, union sockunion *mask, int which)
1125 {
1126 int olen = mask->sa.sa_len;
1127 char *cp1 = olen + (char *)mask, *cp2;
1128
1129 for (mask->sa.sa_len = 0; cp1 > (char *)mask; )
1130 if (*--cp1 != '\0') {
1131 mask->sa.sa_len = 1 + cp1 - (char *)mask;
1132 break;
1133 }
1134 if ((rtm_addrs & which) == 0)
1135 return;
1136 switch (addr->sa.sa_family) {
1137 case AF_INET:
1138 case AF_INET6:
1139 case AF_UNSPEC:
1140 return;
1141 }
1142 cp1 = mask->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)addr;
1143 cp2 = addr->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)addr;
1144 while (cp2 > cp1)
1145 *--cp2 = '\0';
1146 cp2 = mask->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)mask;
1147 while (cp1 > addr->sa.sa_data)
1148 *--cp1 &= *--cp2;
1149 }
The function mask_addr() doesn't mask address for IPv4 and IPv6. Does
any address family other than IPv4 or IPv6 require #1142:1148? The
function seems to just trim the trailing zero. Is it neccesaary? And
it causes the confusion on the kernel. How about deleting
mask_addr()?
The diff following also fixes the problem.
diff --git a/sbin/route/route.c b/sbin/route/route.c
index 9e43d8e89b6..87f26e5c1e7 100644
--- a/sbin/route/route.c
+++ b/sbin/route/route.c
@@ -107,7 +107,6 @@ void print_rtmsg(struct rt_msghdr *, int);
voidpmsg_common(struct rt_msghdr *);
voidpmsg_addrs(char *, int);
voidbprintf(FILE *, int, char *);
-voidmask_addr(union sockunion *, union sockunion *, int);
int getaddr(int, int, char *, struct hostent **);
voidgetmplslabel(char *, int);
int rtmsg(int, int, int, uint8_t);
@@ -1088,8 +1087,6 @@ rtmsg(int cmd, int flags, int fmask, uint8_t prio)
rtm.rtm_mpls = mpls_flags;
rtm.rtm_hdrlen = sizeof(rtm);
- if (rtm_addrs & RTA_NETMASK)
- mask_addr(&so_dst, &so_mask, RTA_DST);
/* store addresses in ascending order of RTA values */
NEXTADDR(RTA_DST, so_dst);
NEXTADDR(RTA_GATEWAY, so_gate);
@@ -1120,34 +1117,6 @@ rtmsg(int cmd, int flags, int fmask, uint8_t prio)
return (0);
}
-void
-mask_addr(union sockunion *addr, union sockunion *mask, int which)
-{
- int olen = mask->sa.sa_len;
- char *cp1 = olen + (char *)mask, *cp2;
-
- for (mask->sa.sa_len = 0; cp1 > (char *)mask; )
- if (*--cp1 != '\0') {
- mask->sa.sa_len = 1 + cp1 - (char *)mask;
- break;
- }
- if ((rtm_addrs & which) == 0)
- return;
- switch (addr->sa.sa_family) {
- case AF_INET:
- case AF_INET6:
- case AF_UNSPEC:
- return;
- }
- cp1 = mask->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)addr;
- cp2 = addr->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char *)addr;
- while (cp2 > cp1)
- *--cp2 = '\0';
- cp2 = mask->sa.sa_len + 1 + (char
Re: route add ::/0 ...
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:12:23 +0200
Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 28/06/20(Sun) 20:41, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When "::/0" is used as "default",
>>
>> # route add ::/0 fe80::1%em0
>> add net ::/0: gateway fe80::1%em0: Invalid argument
>>
>> route command trims the sockaddr to { .len = 2, .family = AF_INET6 }
>> for "::/0", but rtable_satoplen() refuses it. I think it should be
>> accepted.
>
> rtable_satoplen() is used in many places, not just in the socket parsing
> code used by route(8). I don't know what side effects can be introduced
> by this change.
>
> Why is IPv6 different from IPv4 when it comes to the default route?
Diferent functions are used. route(8) uses inet_makenetandmask() to
create a sockaddr for IPv4 prefix length and uses prefixlen() for IPv6
prefix length. "/0" results:
IPv4
{ .len = 1, .family = 0, ... }
IPv6
{ .len = 2, .family = AF_INET6, ... }
Next, route(8) uses mask_addr() to trim the tailing zeros.
1129 void
1130 mask_addr(union sockunion *addr, union sockunion *mask, int which)
1131 {
1132 int olen = mask->sa.sa_len;
1133 char *cp1 = olen + (char *)mask, *cp2;
1134
1135 for (mask->sa.sa_len = 0; cp1 > (char *)mask; )
1136 if (*--cp1 != '\0') {
1137 mask->sa.sa_len = 1 + cp1 - (char *)mask;
1138 break;
1139 }
See #1135 carefully. As the results, the sockaddrs become:
IPv4
{ .len = 0, .family = 0, ... }
IPv6
{ .len = 2, .family = AF_INET6, ... }
Yes, we can fix IPv6 case to have .len = 0 as well.
But I thought kernel should accept both cases, since the
representation for IPv6 didn't seem so bad for me.
> Shouldn't we change route(8) to have a `sa_len' of 0?
>
> That would make the following true:
>
> mlen = mask->sa_len;
>
> /* Default route */
> if (mlen == 0)
> return (0)
>
>> Allow sockaddr for prefix length be trimmed before the key(address)
>> field. Actually "route" command trims at the address family field for
>> "::/0"
>>
>> Index: sys/net/rtable.c
>> ===
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/rtable.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.69
>> diff -u -p -r1.69 rtable.c
>> --- sys/net/rtable.c 21 Jun 2019 17:11:42 - 1.69
>> +++ sys/net/rtable.c 28 Jun 2020 11:30:54 -
>> @@ -887,8 +887,8 @@ rtable_satoplen(sa_family_t af, struct s
>>
>> ap = (uint8_t *)((uint8_t *)mask) + dp->dom_rtoffset;
>> ep = (uint8_t *)((uint8_t *)mask) + mlen;
>> -if (ap > ep)
>> -return (-1);
>> +if (ap >= ep)
>> +return (0);
>
> That means the kernel now silently ignore sockaddr short `sa_len'. Are
> they supposed to be supported or are they symptoms of bugs?
I have missed rtable_satoplen() is used by other functions.
>
>> /* Trim trailing zeroes. */
>> while (ap < ep && ep[-1] == 0)
>
Re: route add ::/0 ...
On 28/06/20(Sun) 20:41, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When "::/0" is used as "default",
>
> # route add ::/0 fe80::1%em0
> add net ::/0: gateway fe80::1%em0: Invalid argument
>
> route command trims the sockaddr to { .len = 2, .family = AF_INET6 }
> for "::/0", but rtable_satoplen() refuses it. I think it should be
> accepted.
rtable_satoplen() is used in many places, not just in the socket parsing
code used by route(8). I don't know what side effects can be introduced
by this change.
Why is IPv6 different from IPv4 when it comes to the default route?
Shouldn't we change route(8) to have a `sa_len' of 0? That would make
the following true:
mlen = mask->sa_len;
/* Default route */
if (mlen == 0)
return (0)
> Allow sockaddr for prefix length be trimmed before the key(address)
> field. Actually "route" command trims at the address family field for
> "::/0"
>
> Index: sys/net/rtable.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/rtable.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.69
> diff -u -p -r1.69 rtable.c
> --- sys/net/rtable.c 21 Jun 2019 17:11:42 - 1.69
> +++ sys/net/rtable.c 28 Jun 2020 11:30:54 -
> @@ -887,8 +887,8 @@ rtable_satoplen(sa_family_t af, struct s
>
> ap = (uint8_t *)((uint8_t *)mask) + dp->dom_rtoffset;
> ep = (uint8_t *)((uint8_t *)mask) + mlen;
> - if (ap > ep)
> - return (-1);
> + if (ap >= ep)
> + return (0);
That means the kernel now silently ignore sockaddr short `sa_len'. Are
they supposed to be supported or are they symptoms of bugs?
> /* Trim trailing zeroes. */
> while (ap < ep && ep[-1] == 0)
