Re: [PATCH 010 of 14] knfsd: SUNRPC: add a "generic" function tosee if the peer uses a secure port

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:59:27 +1100
NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> The only reason svcsock.c looks at a sockaddr's port is to check whether
> the remote peer is connecting from a privileged port.  Refactor this check
> to hide processing that is specific to address format.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Aurelien Charbon <aurelien.charbon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> 
> ### Diffstat output
>  ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c |   20 +++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff .prev/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> --- .prev/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c	2006-12-13 10:32:15.000000000 +1100
> +++ ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c	2006-12-13 10:32:17.000000000 +1100
> @@ -926,6 +926,20 @@ svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk, int 
>  		wake_up_interruptible(sk->sk_sleep);
>  }
>  
> +static inline int svc_port_is_privileged(struct sockaddr *sin)
> +{
> +	switch (sin->sa_family) {
> +	case AF_INET:
> +		return ntohs(((struct sockaddr_in *)sin)->sin_port) < 1024;
> +#if defined(CONFIG_IPV6) || defined(CONFIG_IPV6_MODULE)
> +	case AF_INET6:
> +		return ntohs(((struct sockaddr_in6 *)sin)->sin6_port) < 1024;
> +#endif
> +	default:
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +}

I'm a bit surprised to see this test implemented in sunrpc - it's the sort
of thing which core networking should implement?

And should that "1024" be PROT_SOCK?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/