netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

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, 9 Jan 2017 13:42:31 +0100
From:   Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
        Michael Braun <michael-dev@...i-braun.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> 
> > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211
> > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet
> > header?
> 
> But it does, for example RFC 1122 states:
> 
>          When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address,
>          the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP
>          multicast address.
> 
>          A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via
>          a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify
>          an IP multicast or broadcast destination address.

This example is the other way round. It specifies how the IP
destination should look like in case of link-layer broadcast. Not
how the link-layer destination should look like in case of a
multicast/broadcast IP destination.

Any other examples?