Erik Kline wrote: > On 9 August 2016 at 14:20, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> >> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:00:25 +0900 >> >>> Note that pretty much every sendmsg codepath allows other data to take >>> precedence over sk_bound_dev_if: >>> >>> - udpv6_sendmsg: if sin6_scope_id specified on a scoped address >>> - rawv6_sendmsg: if sin6_scope_id specified on a scoped address >>> - l2tp_ip6_sendmsg: if sin6_scope_id specified on a scoped address >>> - ip_cmsg_send: if IP_PKTINFO or IPV6_PKTINFO specified >>> >>> What should I do about those? -EINVAL? Ignore the conflicting data? Leave >>> as is? >> >> That's a good point, I guess this needs some more thought. > > I could see a point of view that says when bound_if is in play sending > to destinations on/via other interfaces--by any mechanism--should > effectively get ENETUNREACH (or something).
+1 > > That does seem like I would involve changing some existing behavior, though. > The use of sin6_scope_id and SO_BINDTODEVICE with different interfaces is incorrect and should be rejected. -- Hideaki Yoshifuji <hideaki.yoshif...@miraclelinux.com> Technical Division, MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION
