On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 12:05 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 09:49:01PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> ...
> > +struct sctp_udpencaps {
> > + sctp_assoc_t sue_assoc_id;
> > + struct sockaddr_storage sue_address;
> > + uint16_t sue_port;
> > +};
> ...
> > +static int sctp_setsockopt_encap_port(struct sock *sk,
> > + struct sctp_udpencaps *encap,
> > + unsigned int optlen)
> > +{
> > + struct sctp_association *asoc;
> > + struct sctp_transport *t;
> > +
> > + if (optlen != sizeof(*encap))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /* If an address other than INADDR_ANY is specified, and
> > + * no transport is found, then the request is invalid.
> > + */
> > + if (!sctp_is_any(sk, (union sctp_addr *)&encap->sue_address)) {
> > + t = sctp_addr_id2transport(sk, &encap->sue_address,
> > + encap->sue_assoc_id);
> > + if (!t)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + t->encap_port = encap->sue_port;
> ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>
> encap_port is defined as __u16 is previous patch, but from RFC:
> sue_port: The UDP port number in network byte order...
>
> asoc->peer.port is stored in host order, so it makes sense to follow
> it here. Then need a htons() here and its counter parts. It is right
> in some parts of the patches already.
Good catch! thank you!
