netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ipv6: fixup RTF_* flags when restoring RTPROT

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:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 14:06:50 +0300
From:   Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:     Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ipv6: fixup RTF_* flags when restoring RTPROT_RA
 route from rtnetlink

Hello.

On 8/22/2016 2:04 PM, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:

>>> Fix the flags for RA-derived routes that were saved
>>> via "ip -6 route save" and and subsequently restored via
>>> "ip -6 route restore", allowing the incoming router advertisements
>>> to update them, rather than complain about inability to do so.
>>>
>>> Upon the restore of RA-derived saved routes, set the RTF_ADDRCONF
>>> to indicate that the source of the route was originally
>>> a router advertisement, and set the RTF_DEFAULT or RTF_ROUTEINFO
>>> flag depending on prefix length. This can be considered a
>>> sister change of f0396f60d7c165018c9b203fb9b89fb224835578, in
>>
>>    It's enough to specify 12 digits but you also need to specify the commit
>> summary enclosed in ("").
>
> Is just the first line of "ipv6: fix RTPROT_RA markup of RA routes
> w/nexthops" enough, or do I need to include the additional two

    Summary means the patch subject (and the first line of the commit log).

> paragraphs that follow ? (and can I keep the full hash rather than
> truncate down to 12 digits?)

    Yes.

>>> the other direction.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@...il.com>
[...]

MBR, Sergei