On 01/18/15 21:23, David Herrmann wrote: > 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.
OK, sorry for the noise. -Topi > Thanks > David > _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
