netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

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 20:39:43 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
        YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>, temnota.am@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into
 per-interface tables

On 1/9/17 8:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:04 PM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems
>>> that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would
>>> indicate that the code is not well-supported. Being unable to accept
>>> DAD is a pretty serious issue. Andrey, what version of the kernel did
>>> you see this on?
>>
>> Are you referencing an Android or google thread? This patch thread has not mentioned any IPv6 problems.
> 
> No, this thread. I see message-ID 8cddkd-etc.ln1@...ana.localnet in
> this thread. If you didn't get it, I also see it in the comments on
> patchwork - https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/711956/
> 

Odd that I did not get that -- checked spam and trash.

Andrey is missing 830218c1add1da16519b71909e5cf21522b7d062 which tells me the comment is not based on 4.10 or net-next:

$ git describe 830218c1add1da16519b71909e5cf21522b7d062
v4.8-14744-g830218c1add1