Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:02:52 -0500
From:      "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@freebsd.org>
To:        "Attila Nagy" <bra@fsn.hu>
Cc:        svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet
Message-ID:  <d763ac660901091202w4005ea3br196ad71882adeb38@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu>
References:  <200901091602.n09G2Jj1061164@svn.freebsd.org> <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I wasn't even aware of the existance of this interface. I'll check it out.

Thing is, this is a socket layer option, rather than what I've
committed which is a netinet layer option.

Anyway, I'll check it out. I'm happy to fiddle with things if others'
would like it.



Adrian

2009/1/9 Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>:
> Hello,
>
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>> Author: adrian
>> Date: Fri Jan  9 16:02:19 2009
>> New Revision: 186955
>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/186955
>>
>> Log:
>>  Implement a new IP option (not compiled/enabled by default) to allow
>>  applications to specify a non-local IP address when bind()'ing a socket
>>  to a local endpoint.
>>    This allows applications to spoof the client IP address of connections
>>  if (obviously!) they somehow are able to receive the traffic normally
>>  destined to said clients.
>>    This patch doesn't include any changes to ipfw or the bridging code to
>>  redirect the client traffic through the PCB checks so TCP gets a shot
>>  at it. The normal behaviour is that packets with a non-local destination
>>  IP address are not handled locally. This can be dealth with some IPFW
>> hackery;
>>  modifications to IPFW to make this less hacky will occur in subsequent
>>  commmits.
>>    Thanks to Julian Elischer and others at Ironport. This work was
>> approved
>>  and donated before Cisco acquired them.
>>    Obtained from:        Julian Elischer and others
>>  MFC after:    2 weeks
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be better to implement existing interfaces for that?
> OpenBSD has a SO_BINDANY socket option and it seems it's also in BSD/OS:
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&w=2&r=1&s=bindany&q=b
>
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d763ac660901091202w4005ea3br196ad71882adeb38>