Page MenuHomeFreeBSD
Differential D3686

UDP-Lite fixes
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by bz on Sep 17 2015, 11:24 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F103007091: D3686.id8857.diff
Tue, Nov 19, 6:19 PM
F102935108: D3686.diff
Mon, Nov 18, 11:07 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Oct 31, 4:31 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 29 2024, 6:01 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 19 2024, 12:55 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 18 2024, 9:47 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 17 2024, 11:41 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 4 2024, 4:02 AM
View All 99 Files
Subscribers
imp
network

Details

Reviewers
kevlo
gnn
btw
adrian
Commits
rS288065: In the UDP over IPv6 implementation several cases are using the wrong protocol,
Summary

In the UDP over IPv6 implementation several cases are using the wrong protocol, e.g., based on wrong "next header" assumptions (which does not have to point to the upper layer protocol), or using hard-coded UDP instead of UDP or UDP-Lite switching protocols.
Fix those cases for UDP-Lite it to work correctly.

PR: 202788
Submitted by: Tiwei Bie (btw mail.ustc.edu.cn) (one part)
MFC After: 2 weeks

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202788

Diff Detail

Repository
rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

bz updated this revision to Diff 8813.Sep 17 2015, 11:24 AM
bz retitled this revision from to UDP-Lite fixes.
bz updated this object.
bz edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
bz added reviewers: adrian, gnn, kevlo.
bz set the repository for this revision to rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion.
bz added a subscriber: network.
Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald TranscriptSep 17 2015, 11:24 AM
btw added a reviewer: btw.Sep 17 2015, 11:49 AM
kevlo accepted this revision.Sep 17 2015, 2:26 PM
kevlo edited edge metadata.

You're right, we should use "proto" to get the UDP or UDP-Lite.
Thanks for fixing it.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sep 17 2015, 2:26 PM
btw added inline comments.Sep 18 2015, 2:27 PM
sys/netinet6/udp6_usrreq.c
1236

If we are going to replace the hard-coded UDP used in ip_protox[]
with UDP or UDP-Lite switching protocols, should we do that in all
cases? (I know UDP and UDP-Lite share udp_usrreqs)

Such as these codes:

static void
udp6_abort(struct socket *so)
{
	......

#ifdef INET
	if (inp->inp_vflag & INP_IPV4) {
		struct pr_usrreqs *pru;

		pru = inetsw[ip_protox[IPPROTO_UDP]].pr_usrreqs;
		(*pru->pru_abort)(so);
		return;
	}
#endif
	......
}

static void
udp6_close(struct socket *so)
{
	......

#ifdef INET
	if (inp->inp_vflag & INP_IPV4) {
		struct pr_usrreqs *pru;

		pru = inetsw[ip_protox[IPPROTO_UDP]].pr_usrreqs;
		(*pru->pru_disconnect)(so);
		return;
	}
#endif

	......
}

static int
udp6_disconnect(struct socket *so)
{
	......

#ifdef INET
	if (inp->inp_vflag & INP_IPV4) {
		struct pr_usrreqs *pru;

		pru = inetsw[ip_protox[IPPROTO_UDP]].pr_usrreqs;
		(void)(*pru->pru_disconnect)(so);
		return (0);
	}
#endif

	......

}

Thanks! :-)

bz updated this revision to Diff 8844.Sep 19 2015, 11:25 AM
bz edited edge metadata.

Update for all ip_protox[] cases.

This revision now requires review to proceed.Sep 19 2015, 11:25 AM
bz marked an inline comment as done.Sep 19 2015, 11:25 AM

Updated to catch the other 3.

btw accepted this revision.Sep 19 2015, 5:11 PM
btw edited edge metadata.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sep 19 2015, 5:11 PM
gnn accepted this revision.Sep 20 2015, 7:12 PM
gnn edited edge metadata.
Closed by commit rS288065: In the UDP over IPv6 implementation several cases are using the wrong protocol, (authored by bz). · Explain WhySep 21 2015, 12:33 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

Revision Contents
Changeset List

PathSize
sys/
netinet6/
38 lines

Diff 8844

View Options

sys/netinet6/udp6_usrreq.c

Loading...