On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:59:27 +1100
NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Chuck Lever <[email protected]>
> The only reason svcsock.c looks at a sockaddr's port is to check whether
> the remote peer is connecting from a privileged port. Refactor this check
> to hide processing that is specific to address format.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <[email protected]>
> Cc: Aurelien Charbon <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
>
> ### Diffstat output
> ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff .prev/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> --- .prev/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c 2006-12-13 10:32:15.000000000 +1100
> +++ ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c 2006-12-13 10:32:17.000000000 +1100
> @@ -926,6 +926,20 @@ svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk, int
> wake_up_interruptible(sk->sk_sleep);
> }
>
> +static inline int svc_port_is_privileged(struct sockaddr *sin)
> +{
> + switch (sin->sa_family) {
> + case AF_INET:
> + return ntohs(((struct sockaddr_in *)sin)->sin_port) < 1024;
> +#if defined(CONFIG_IPV6) || defined(CONFIG_IPV6_MODULE)
> + case AF_INET6:
> + return ntohs(((struct sockaddr_in6 *)sin)->sin6_port) < 1024;
> +#endif
> + default:
> + return 0;
> + }
> +}
I'm a bit surprised to see this test implemented in sunrpc - it's the sort
of thing which core networking should implement?
And should that "1024" be PROT_SOCK?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
