Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:21:16 GMT From: Andrew <fbsdbugs.10.awinder@spamgourmet.com> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: kern/136257: Able to set an invalid netmask Message-ID: <200907022221.n62MLG9i068445@www.freebsd.org> Resent-Message-ID: <200907022230.n62MU46p028518@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 136257
>Category: kern
>Synopsis: Able to set an invalid netmask
>Confidential: no
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Responsible: freebsd-bugs
>State: open
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Thu Jul 02 22:30:04 UTC 2009
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Andrew
>Release: 7.2-RELEASE-p2
>Organization:
Falcon Tech Systems
>Environment:
>Description:
I'm able to set an invalid netmask:
ifconfig bridge0 inet 192.168.8.1 netmask 0xd0452484;
bridge0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
ether 6a:7d:09:1a:3e:34
inet 192.168.8.1 netmask 0xd0452484 broadcast 192.168.8.255
id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwddelay 15
maxage 20 holdcnt 6 proto rstp maxaddr 100 timeout 1200
root id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 32768 ifcost 0 port 0
member: em0 flags=143<LEARNING,DISCOVER,AUTOEDGE,AUTOPTP>
ifmaxaddr 0 port 1 priority 128 path cost 20000
Netstat output is then confusing:
192.0.0.0&0xd0452484 link#5 UC 0 0 bridge
I've also tested this on a non-bridge interface, gif0, em0. As inet corresponds to an IPv4 address, this seems invalid.
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200907022221.n62MLG9i068445>