netdev - Re: [Bug 18212] New: force_igmp_version ignored when a IGMPv3 query received (+1 line patch)

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:	Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:02:40 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	dlstevens@...ibm.com, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 18212] New: force_igmp_version ignored when a IGMPv3
	query received (+1 line patch)

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 02:24:18PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:20:40 -0700
> 
> > netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org wrote on 09/10/2010 09:19:36 AM:
> > 
> >> 
> >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18212
> >> 
> >>            Summary: force_igmp_version ignored when a IGMPv3 query
> >>                     received (+1 line patch)
> > 
> >> 
> >> Created an attachment (id=29512)
> >>  --> (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=29512)
> >> fix force_igmp_version v3 query problem
> >> 
> >> After all these years, it turns out that the
> >>     /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/force_igmp_version
> >> parameter isn't fully implemented.
> > 
> >         I don't think it's correct to send a v2 response to a v3
> > query in any case. The question for answering v3 queries was
> > whether to answer them with a v3 report, or to drop them and
> > ignore them when force_igmp_version==2. I chose to respond,
> > but I can see the case for dropping it too. I don't agree that
> > a v3 query should be answered with a v2 resport (a real v2
> > host would drop it).
> 
> Do you have an alternative patch to suggest?

I have gone through both IGMPv2/v3 RFCs and can't find anything
that forbids an IGMPv2 host from replying with a v2 report to a
v3 query.  On the other hand I think dropping the v3 query is also
allowed.

For interoperability, it would seem slightly better to reply with
a v2 report, although I will defer to David Stevens on this :)

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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