commit 26f42921c0fdf7a20d91cc6c667cbcd7c4411f1e
author manojboopathi <manojboopathi@google.com> Thu Dec 14 10:51:57 2017 -0800
committer manojboopathi <manojboopathi@google.com> Tue Jan 02 13:34:48 2018 -0800
tree 2ed48f9bc3b48f2be4673bd8fd6e8bb91caa5e66
parent 560f0d4eaa48382bdda5f3443f442d788435e7a7

Relax the IP Family check in XfrmController

To enable dual sockets, the family check in xfrmcontroller
is very strict. This has been relaxed so that IP V6 sockets
do not throw "Mismatched Address family" exception if V4 address
is used.
Also added Unit test to verify the same.

Bug: 70160694
Test: Ran runtest -x system/netd/server/netd_unit_test.cpp
Change-Id: Ib1bba21037ec1de3858c595fa32fee5e833d18bf

server/XfrmController.cpp

diff --git a/server/XfrmController.cpp b/server/XfrmController.cpp
index c9389cd..24ccee4 100644
--- a/server/XfrmController.cpp
+++ b/server/XfrmController.cpp
@@ -612,10 +612,10 @@
         return status;
     }
 
-    if (saInfo.addrFamily != saddr.ss_family) {
-        ALOGE("Transform address family(%d) differs from socket address "
-              "family(%d)!",
-              saInfo.addrFamily, saddr.ss_family);
+    if (saddr.ss_family == AF_INET && saInfo.addrFamily != AF_INET) {
+        ALOGE("IPV4 socket address family(%d) should match IPV4 Transform "
+              "address family(%d)!",
+              saddr.ss_family, saInfo.addrFamily);
         return netdutils::statusFromErrno(EINVAL, "Mismatched address family");
     }
 
@@ -630,7 +630,7 @@
     LOG_HEX("XfrmUserPolicy", reinterpret_cast<char*>(&policy), sizeof(policy));
 
     int sockOpt, sockLayer;
-    switch (saInfo.addrFamily) {
+    switch (saddr.ss_family) {
         case AF_INET:
             sockOpt = IP_XFRM_POLICY;
             sockLayer = SOL_IP;