| 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: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:41:45 +0200 From: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se> To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Weak host model vs .interface down Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> wrote on 2010/06/11 19:13:42: > > > The weak model doesn't go into such detail, it is assumption/impl. detail > > to assume that the ip address still is part of the system even when the interface > > is down. One could just as well define interface down as temporarly removing > > the IP address from the system too. This makes make much more sense to me and > > if you always want the system to answer on a IP adress you make it an IP alias. > > > > Since the current behaviour is a problem to me and routers in general, can > > we change this? What is the current usage model which needs it to stay as is? > > Router != end-system so I wouldn't think the weak or strong end-system model > would apply to a router. I think Stephen already posted a patch to allow that > for when one's box was a router rather than an end-system. Not really an anwser to what I was asking but I choose to read that as you agree with me. The rest is an impl. detail. :) Stephen's patch is good but I would not mind making I/F down removing the IP address from the system unconditionally. Jocke -- 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