| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:40:32 +0300 From: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru> To: Jonas Danielsson <the.sator@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jmorris@...ei.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ipv4/arp.c: Fix arp reply when sender ip 0 (was: Strange behavior in arp probe reply, bug or feature?) Hello! > Send a correct arp reply instead of one with sender ip and sender > hardware adress in target fields. I do not see anything more legal in setting target address to 0. Actually, semantics of target address in ARP reply is ambiguous. If it is a reply to some real request, it is set to address of requestor and protocol requires recipient of this arp reply to test that the address matches its own address before creating new entry triggered by unsolicited arp reply. That's all. In the case of duplicate address detection, requestor does not have any address, so that it is absolutely not essential what we use as target address. The only place, which could depend on this is the tool, which tests for duplicate address. At least, arping written by me, should work with any variant. So, please, could you explain what did force you to think that use of 0 is better? Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists