|From:||"Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:21:07 +0100|
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:00:54AM +0100, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:Could you elaborate on that? How should mapped ipv4 addresses be handled? I guess there would need to be a check for already used ipv4 addresses, and vice versa.At least the IPv6 case is incomplete as it doesn't deal with mapped ipv4 addresses. I also don't think the behaviour for INADDR_ANY is correct.
If mapped IPv4 addresses are allowed, they should get exactly the same handling as normal IPv4 addresses. Esp. mapped 127.0.0.1 needs to be handled accordingly.
What behaviour for INADDR_ANY would be correct? (If you can use this term)
When a socket is allowed to bind to INADDR_ANY two things have to be guarantied: (a) Connections to it are effectively only allowed, when one of the jail IPs can be used. E.g. if the jail is bound to 192.168.1.1 and 10.1.1.1, but the machine has also 22.214.171.124 as IP, a connection to that must not go to the jail. (b) Connections *from* the jail must use one of the jail addresses as source. E.g. when the jail is bound to 192.168.1.1 as before, a connection to 10.1.1.2 must not use 10.1.1.1 as soure address.
This gets further complicated by the question whether or not binding to broadcast and/or multicast addresses should be enabled by default.
-- Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\ Work - Mac +++ space for low €€€ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ / Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \ Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \
Description: OpenPGP digital signature