gnrc_sock: imply end-point netif only if unset#16643
Merged
MrKevinWeiss merged 1 commit intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom Jul 14, 2021
Merged
gnrc_sock: imply end-point netif only if unset#16643MrKevinWeiss merged 1 commit intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom
MrKevinWeiss merged 1 commit intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom
Conversation
MrKevinWeiss
approved these changes
Jul 14, 2021
Contributor
MrKevinWeiss
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good and test passes (with Murdock HiL). ACK
Member
Author
|
Backport provided in #16647 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Contribution description
Found this while testing #16606: When using the
gnrc_netif_singleoptimization modulegnrc_sockbasically accepts anynetifvalue in thegnrc_sock*_ep_tstructs, as it is just overwritten with the ID only existing network interface. While this seems like a nice extra from a shell user perspective, I wouldn't call this behavior valid and it also might cause some faulty behavior if e.g. invalid interface IDs are received from the network (as might be the case with DHCPv6's Interface ID option #16606).Testing procedure
The following tests should still pass:
tests/gnrc_sock_udptests/gnrc_sock_ipIssues/PRs references
None