Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add RPL Hop-by-Hop option (RFC 6553) #3998

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 5, 2024

Conversation

thvdveld
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist:

  • If you are new to Scapy: I have checked CONTRIBUTING.md (esp. section submitting-pull-requests)
  • I squashed commits belonging together
  • I added unit tests or explained why they are not relevant
  • I executed the regression tests (using cd test && ./run_tests or tox)
  • The PR is complete

This adds support for the RPL Option, defined in RFC 6553, which is used in the Hop-by-Hop options.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 26, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #3998 (4a85ff8) into master (5a2dbf0) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3998      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.95%   81.94%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         331      331              
  Lines       76647    76664      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits        62813    62823      +10     
- Misses      13834    13841       +7     
Files Coverage Δ
scapy/layers/inet6.py 88.60% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

@thvdveld thvdveld force-pushed the rpl-hop-by-hop-option branch from b8eb122 to 6a8a25e Compare April 26, 2023 13:37
Copy link
Member

@guedou guedou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me. Could you explain us what the parsing of the sub-TLV should be?

@thvdveld
Copy link
Contributor Author

The RFC says that there are no sub-TLV's defined in that RFC.

The action taken by using the RPL Option and the potential set of
sub-TLVs carried within the RPL Option MUST be specified by the RFC
of the protocol that uses that option. No sub-TLVs are defined in
this document. A RPL device MUST skip over any unrecognized sub-TLVs
and attempt to process any additional sub-TLVs that may appear after.

I hope this answers your question.

@gpotter2
Copy link
Member

Hi ! Would you mind rebasing against master? Thanks

@thvdveld thvdveld force-pushed the rpl-hop-by-hop-option branch from 6a8a25e to f6b28ca Compare November 27, 2023 10:10
scapy/layers/inet6.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gpotter2 gpotter2 added this to the 2.6.0 milestone Nov 28, 2023
@thvdveld thvdveld force-pushed the rpl-hop-by-hop-option branch from f6b28ca to f42a4ed Compare November 29, 2023 10:24
scapy/layers/inet6.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@thvdveld thvdveld force-pushed the rpl-hop-by-hop-option branch from f42a4ed to 4a85ff8 Compare November 30, 2023 08:38
@guedou
Copy link
Member

guedou commented Nov 30, 2023

@thvdveld the linting issues will appear in the Checks tab. Locally, you can install https://tox.wiki/en/4.11.4/ and launch tox flake8 to reproduce the CI behavior.

@thvdveld
Copy link
Contributor Author

@guedou Thank you!

@gpotter2 gpotter2 merged commit 90ec725 into secdev:master Feb 5, 2024
21 checks passed
@gpotter2
Copy link
Member

gpotter2 commented Feb 5, 2024

Very sorry for the delay !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants