Hi On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Topi Miettinen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/18/15 20:45, David Herrmann wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Topi Miettinen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I think resolved_manager.c function manager_recv() has an assertion that >>> could be triggerable by the server sending an oversized packet: >>> >>> assert(!(mh.msg_flags & MSG_TRUNC)); >>> >>> The other assertions look suspicious too but I don't know if they can >>> really be triggered by the other side. >> >> We use FIONREAD to read the size of the next pending datagram. >> Therefore, MSG_TRUNC cannot be set. Similarly, we provide suitable >> control-data space so MSG_CTRUNC cannot be set, either. > > OK. What about the assertions later, is it possible to receive a reply > via IPv6 for IPv4 request or the other way around?
Those asserts verify that the CMSG socket-type is the same as the PACKET/PEER socket-type. I don't see how this looks at the request-type? Those assert()s look good to me. Thanks David _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
