| 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: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:11:06 -0500 From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> CC: chuck.lever@...cle.com, tytso@....edu, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, arvidjaar@...l.ru, rjw@...k.pl, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, jamagallon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5 David Miller wrote: > From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com> > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:33:42 -0500 > >> Would a module parameter that disables ipv6 or at least addrconf be >> enough of a solution? > > We have it, it's just that (as others have stated) it doesn't > prevent IPV6 sockets from being openned by applications. > Is that what people really want to block? Or do they want to prevent the use of IPv6 in environments where IPv6 is not supported? If it's this case, then simply not configuring any IPv6 addresses on the system interfaces will make it seem as if IPv6 is not there. Without IPv6 addresses, AF_INET6 sockets are the same as AF_INET. I really see no reason to block them. Any legacy apps that people might worry about don't use this type socket any way. One doesn't even need to worry about processing IPv6 traffic, since the system would never join any IPv6 multicast groups and thus would never see 99% of the traffic. -vlad -- 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