Bug 15868
Summary: | Deleting IP address from interface doesn't prevent sending a data. | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Networking | Reporter: | Yurij Plotnikov (Yurij.Plotnikov) |
Component: | IPV4 | Assignee: | Stephen Hemminger (stephen) |
Status: | RESOLVED DOCUMENTED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | akpm, Alexandra.Kossovsky |
Priority: | P1 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Kernel Version: | Subsystem: | ||
Regression: | Yes | Bisected commit-id: |
Description
Yurij Plotnikov
2010-04-28 08:11:00 UTC
(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface). On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:11:02 GMT bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15868 > > Summary: Deleting IP address from interface doesn't prevent > sending a data. > Product: Networking > Version: 2.5 > Platform: All > OS/Version: Linux > Tree: Mainline > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P1 > Component: IPV4 > AssignedTo: shemminger@linux-foundation.org > ReportedBy: Yurij.Plotnikov@oktetlabs.ru > Regression: No > > > Starting from 2.6.26, Linux kernel has strange behavior for the interface > with > two IPv4 addresses. > > Let A and B are hosts with directly connected interfaces ethA (on host A) > and > ethB (on host B). Let 10.10.0.1/24 and 10.10.0.3/24 addresses are assigned to > ethA and 10.10.0.2/24 address is assigned to ethB. Let there is established > TCP > connection between host A and host B with sockets sock_A and sock_B that are > bound to 10.10.0.3 and 10.10.0.2 addresses respectively. Then if someone > deletes 10.10.0.3 address from ethA interface and after that send some data > from sock_A socket then the data will be delivered to sock_B socket and > someone > can read it from this socket. > > There is the same picture for UDP sockets. With previous definitions if > there > are UDP sockets sock_A on host A and sock_B on host B and they are bound to > 10.10.0.3 and 10.10.0.2 addresses respectively and they are connected to > 10.10.0.2 and 10.10.0.3 addresses respectively then if someone deletes > 10.10.0.3 address from ethA interface and after that send some data using > send() function from sock_A then the data will be delivered to sock_B. > > The data will not be sent in both cases if there are no addresses assigned to > the interface after address removing. From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:42:44 -0400 > > (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the > bugzilla web interface). > This is expected behavior. On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:00:19 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:42:44 -0400 > > > > > (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the > > bugzilla web interface). > > > > This is expected behavior. Yurij says the behavior chnaged. Was 2.6.25 behaving incorrectly? |