lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #21643, udp_send/raw_send don't fail if...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #21643: udp_send/raw_send don't fail if netif is down
Submitter: | Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> | ||
Submitted: | Sun 25 Nov 2007 11:04:20 AM UTC | ||
Category: | IPv4 | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Change Request | Status: | Fixed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | goldsimon |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Wed 28 Nov 2007 06:48:54 AM UTC, comment #17: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 27 Nov 2007 07:58:11 PM UTC, comment #16: I'll check it in, then:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 27 Nov 2007 03:03:01 PM UTC, comment #15: Sounds like a plan to me. |
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Tue 27 Nov 2007 11:59:08 AM UTC, comment #14:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 27 Nov 2007 04:40:33 AM UTC, comment #13:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 26 Nov 2007 10:33:44 PM UTC, comment #12:
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Mon 26 Nov 2007 05:04:34 PM UTC, comment #11:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 26 Nov 2007 04:20:45 PM UTC, comment #10:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 26 Nov 2007 04:01:02 PM UTC, comment #9: It should be illegal to send any IP packet until the interface is up, so we shouldn't need to special case broadcast or multicast. This shouldn't impact things like DHCP because they're not IP packets. ARP is also not IP, so we might need some way to prevent them as well, but are they really calling through ip_output_if()? That function sounds like it should be for IP packets only. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 12:58:15 PM UTC, comment #8:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 12:55:59 PM UTC, comment #7: Dunno, not using that ;-) What would you suggest? Is it legal to send multicast packets without having an IP address?
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 12:50:45 PM UTC, comment #6: And about multicast ? |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 12:49:30 PM UTC, comment #5:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 12:44:18 PM UTC, comment #4: BTW: adding a check in ip_output_if() to send only if dest==BROADCAST or the netif is up (or netif->ip_addr != 0), we can safely reproduce a bug that task #6969 (Review usage of conn->err in netconn layer) should fix :-)
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 12:39:58 PM UTC, comment #3:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 12:24:56 PM UTC, comment #2: I'm not concerned about lost packets but about ARP requests like "Who has 208.67.222.222? Tell 0.0.0.0". To me, this looks like an error!
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 11:59:09 AM UTC, comment #1: Since the packet could be also lost on the wire, do that will just increase the "lw"IP size.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 25 Nov 2007 11:04:20 AM UTC, original submission:
While this is required for dhcp, normal UDP pcbs (like the ping example) should fail.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 5 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007-11-28 | goldsimon | Category | None | IPv4 | |
2007-11-28 | goldsimon | Status | In Progress | Fixed | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2007-11-27 | goldsimon | Status | None | In Progress | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon |
Powered by Savane 3.13-3230.
Corresponding source code
An since task #6969 is nearly solved, I'll check in the patch to ip_route now, so netifs that are down aren't used for routing.
With that, this bug is fixed.