Piteball
/
android_kernel_samsung_msm8976
mirror of https://github.com/team-infusion-developers/android_kernel_samsung_msm8976.git
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

ipv4: Really ignore ICMP address requests/replies. 

Alexey removed kernel side support for requests, and the
only thing we do for replies is log a message if something
doesn't look right.

As Alexey's comment indicates, this belongs in userspace (if
anywhere), and thus we can safely just get rid of this code.

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
David S. Miller 2012-07-23 13:20:26 -07:00
parent 8acfaa9484
commit 838942a594
1 changed files with 2 additions and 82 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

84
net/ipv4/icmp.c
View File

@ -837,86 +837,6 @@ out_err:
goto out;
}
/*
* Handle ICMP_ADDRESS_MASK requests. (RFC950)
*
* RFC1122 (3.2.2.9). A host MUST only send replies to
* ADDRESS_MASK requests if it's been configured as an address mask
* agent. Receiving a request doesn't constitute implicit permission to
* act as one. Of course, implementing this correctly requires (SHOULD)
* a way to turn the functionality on and off. Another one for sysctl(),
* I guess. -- MS
*
* RFC1812 (4.3.3.9). A router MUST implement it.
* A router SHOULD have switch turning it on/off.
* This switch MUST be ON by default.
*
* Gratuitous replies, zero-source replies are not implemented,
* that complies with RFC. DO NOT implement them!!! All the idea
* of broadcast addrmask replies as specified in RFC950 is broken.
* The problem is that it is not uncommon to have several prefixes
* on one physical interface. Moreover, addrmask agent can even be
* not aware of existing another prefixes.
* If source is zero, addrmask agent cannot choose correct prefix.
* Gratuitous mask announcements suffer from the same problem.
* RFC1812 explains it, but still allows to use ADDRMASK,
* that is pretty silly. --ANK
*
* All these rules are so bizarre, that I removed kernel addrmask
* support at all. It is wrong, it is obsolete, nobody uses it in
* any case. --ANK
*
* Furthermore you can do it with a usermode address agent program
* anyway...
*/
static void icmp_address(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
#if 0
net_dbg_ratelimited("a guy asks for address mask. Who is it?\n");
#endif
}
/*
* RFC1812 (4.3.3.9). A router SHOULD listen all replies, and complain
* loudly if an inconsistency is found.
* called with rcu_read_lock()
*/
static void icmp_address_reply(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
struct rtable *rt = skb_rtable(skb);
struct net_device *dev = skb->dev;
struct in_device *in_dev;
struct in_ifaddr *ifa;
if (skb->len < 4 || !(rt->rt_flags&RTCF_DIRECTSRC))
return;
in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev);
if (!in_dev)
return;
if (in_dev->ifa_list &&
IN_DEV_LOG_MARTIANS(in_dev) &&
IN_DEV_FORWARD(in_dev)) {
__be32 _mask, *mp;
mp = skb_header_pointer(skb, 0, sizeof(_mask), &_mask);
BUG_ON(mp == NULL);
for (ifa = in_dev->ifa_list; ifa; ifa = ifa->ifa_next) {
if (*mp == ifa->ifa_mask &&
inet_ifa_match(ip_hdr(skb)->saddr, ifa))
break;
}
if (!ifa)
net_info_ratelimited("Wrong address mask %pI4 from %s/%pI4\n",
mp,
dev->name, &ip_hdr(skb)->saddr);
}
}
static void icmp_discard(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
}
@ -1080,10 +1000,10 @@ static const struct icmp_control icmp_pointers[NR_ICMP_TYPES + 1] = {
.handler = icmp_discard,
},
[ICMP_ADDRESS] = {
.handler = icmp_address,
.handler = icmp_discard,
},
[ICMP_ADDRESSREPLY] = {
.handler = icmp_address_reply,
.handler = icmp_discard,
},
};