netdev - Re: [stable] [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback down

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:	Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:21:14 +1100
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	jbohac@...e.cz, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...nel.org, stephen.hemminger@...tta.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, brian.haley@...com, lorenzo@...gle.com,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, maheshkelkar@...il.com
Subject: Re: [stable] [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback
 down

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:15:32 +0100
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:

> [ first, is there a reason we have stable@ CCed on this thread ? ]
> 
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 07:26:24PM +1100, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > You are probably so upset because I stepped on code you worked hard
> > > on. But the IPv6 semantics should not have been different from IPv4
> > > and the disable_ipv6 flag was a poor API choice as well. Legacy
> > > API's suck, I don't expect perfection but it should be possible
> > > to make a working version that:
> > > 
> > > Allows disabling IPv6 completely on an interface
> > > AND Has the same address and route semantics for both
> > > IPv4 and IPv6.
> > 
> > Also for application sanity, Linux should behave the same as BSD
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> while I agree with all the points you made, David is right in that we
> can't use a fix for a bug as a justification for breaking something
> that worked for other people. It simply means that everything that was
> merged since the first regression was introduced should be reverted
> and reworked until a more satisfying solution is found.
> 
> Otherwise users lose trust and you have to deal with much more cases
> when users report issues.
> 
> If the bug is caused by a deep design issue, then maybe a development
> branch should be dedicated to it so that the persons affected by it

I made my attempt at fixing the issue, others can attack that mud pit.


--
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