netdev - IPv6: presentation format for zero scope ID

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:45:03 -0500
From:	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To:	Linux Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Subject: IPv6: presentation format for zero scope ID

I recently added some functions to sunrpc.ko that behave like  
getnameinfo(AI_NUMERICHOST) does in user space.

One of the functions, rpc_ntop6(), sticks a scope ID on the end of  
link- and site-local IPv6 addresses.  It does not try to map the scope  
ID to a device name.

It has been pointed out, however, that glibc's getnameinfo(3) skips  
appending a device name if the scope ID is zero.  Should rpc_ntop6()  
display or ignore zero scope IDs?  Would it be better if it also  
converted scope IDs to device names?

I'm not familiar enough with the IETF mandates regarding presentation  
address format, or the idiosyncrasies of the Linux IPv6  
implementation, to know what is the desired behavior here.  Any  
guidance appreciated.

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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