[19340] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: krb5 UDP daemons and IP pktinfo
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kenneth G Raeburn)
Tue Jan 12 01:58:57 2016
From: Kenneth G Raeburn <raeburn@mit.edu>
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 06:58:41 +0000
Message-ID: <EB249A1B-3C4C-4175-9C02-61A9CCA14322@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <x7dd1tfd6yc.fsf@equal-rites.mit.edu>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-ID: <100C9D40C7E0054D93C437B4424362EB@exchange.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: krbdev <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> In 2010 I asked for help doing a platform survey, and found that while
> Linux and Solaris 11 implement an IPv4 variant of pktinfo (IP_PKTINFO),
> other platforms do not (NetBSD added it in 2013). Until yesterday, my
> operating assumption was that we were stuck with the complex code for
> the forseeable future. Yesterday, I discovered that some operating
> systems implement the same functionality in a different way
> (IP_RECVDSTADDR). If we handle both variants, then we can safely bind
> to the IPv4 wildcard address on Linux, Solaris, all of the BSDs, and OS
> X.
Have you checked that it actually works? It’s been a long time, but I remember running across IP_RECVDSTADDR, and I seem to recall that some options in this space didn’t seem to work as documented (or at all?) on some platforms, but I can’t recall for sure if IP_RECVDSTADDR was what was broken, and of course it could’ve been fixed since for the platforms you care about.
> So, I think it might be reasonable to simplify the net-server.c code at
> the expense of some degradation on the rare platforms which don't
> implement either variant of IPv4 pktinfo. My favored form of
> degradation is that we always bind to the wildcard address, and if the
> platform doesn't have IPv4 pktinfo support, we just let sendto() pick
> the source address of the reply. For those platforms, our UDP daemons
> will continue to work on single-homed machines, but might not behave
> properly on multi-homed machine depending on the routing configuration.
>
> Do other people agree that this is reasonable?
If RECVDSTADDR works and covers the important platforms that PKTINFO doesn’t, it sounds like quite a nice simplification. That bit with the routing socket is pretty annoying.
Ken
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
