Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:28:07 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> To: Tiwei Bie <btw@mail.ustc.edu.cn> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, adrian@freebsd.org, hiren@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A bug in udp6_input() - should use proto instead of ip6->ip6_nxt Message-ID: <5FEE8C05-A25A-4A74-A8B0-4CA75A696D54@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1440993949-20698-1-git-send-email-btw@mail.ustc.edu.cn> References: <1440993949-20698-1-git-send-email-btw@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 31 Aug 2015, at 04:05 , Tiwei Bie <btw@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote: >=20 > I found a bug in udp6_input(). The 'proto' parameter should be used to > get the protocol number (UDP or UDPLITE), instead of ip6->ip6_nxt. >=20 > Because ip6->ip6_nxt may be the protocol number of extension header, > such as: >=20 > If a UDP packet is an "atomic" fragment, frag6_input() will return > directly, and ip6->ip6_nxt will be IPPROTO_FRAGMENT (if the first > extension header is the fragment header) instead of IPPROTO_UDP or > IPPROTO_UDPLITE: Hmm, that might be a bug elsewhere but atomic fragments are soon to go = away again; wish people would listen in first place; but anyway. There are more of these bugs that came with the UDP-Lite code, such as = 4mapped addresses are not handled correctly in the output path, etc. Can you open a bug for this and we can attach all the UDP-Lite fixes to = it to properly document them and get them through review in a few days = and committed? Thanks, Bjoern=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5FEE8C05-A25A-4A74-A8B0-4CA75A696D54>