netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F

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, 21 Feb 2018 15:34:21 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sd@...asysnail.net
Cc:     dsahern@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC
 addresses

From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:17:17 +0100

> 2018-02-20, 10:25:41 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>> > According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as
>> > optimistic addresses is acceptable, as long as the implementation
>> > follows some rules:
>> > 
>> >    * Optimistic DAD SHOULD only be used when the implementation is aware
>> >         that the address is based on a most likely unique interface
>> >         identifier (such as in [RFC2464]), generated randomly [RFC3041],
>> >         or by a well-distributed hash function [RFC3972] or assigned by
>> >         Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].
>> >         Optimistic DAD SHOULD NOT be used for manually entered
>> >         addresses.
>> 
>> That last line suggests this patch should not be allowed.
> 
> I think it should. Some tools perform autoconfiguration in userspace,
> why should the kernel prevent them from requesting optimistic DAD?
> 
> If the administrator decides to enable optimistic DAD on
> poorly-choosen addresses, or to disable DAD entirely, that's their
> problem.

See, this is the slippery slope we go down once we have allowed
userspace to engage in the ipv6 autoconfiguration process.

Whether the kernel is in control or not, or enforcing the rules
properly, is always going to be ambiguous and hard to determine.

I somewhat regret allowing us to go down this path...