netdev - RE: [PATCH] IPv6 multicast routing

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:30:38 -0800
From:	"Goff, Thomas" <Thomas.Goff@...ing.com>
To:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Cc:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@...ing.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] IPv6 multicast routing

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:04:31AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:

> >   - Enable/disable IPv6 multicast forwarding on the corresponding
> >     interface when a routing daemon adds/removes a multicast virtual
> >     interface.
:
> However, I believe configuring forwarding is user's responsibility
> and I'm not in favor of managing mc_forwarding automatically.
>
> If we go your way, we need to make the proc interface read-only, but
> you know, they will become non-"conf" interface. :-(
> And, well, we will introduce another possible overflow/underflow here...
>
> Another thought was to allow non-VIF routing settings (or manual settings).
>
> So, I decided to drop that bits.

Thanks for looking it over.

I think your approach to handling mc_forwarding makes sense, although
it differs from the IPv4 behavior.  In any case, it looks like the
current IPv4 and IPv6 multicast routing code does not consider an
interface's mc_forwarding value at all.

  Tom
--
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