netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] rds: Enable RDS IPv6 support

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:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 06:16:57 -0400
From:   Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:     Ka-Cheong Poon <ka-cheong.poon@...cle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, rds-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] rds: Enable RDS IPv6 support

On (06/26/18 13:30), Ka-Cheong Poon wrote:
> 
> My answer to this is that if a socket is not bound to a link
> local address (meaning it is bound to a non-link local address)
> and it is used to send to a link local peer, I think it should
> fail.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. I dont think this is forbidden
by RFC 6724 - yes, such a packet cannot be forwarded, but
if everything is on  the same link, and the dest only has
a link-local, you should not need to (create and) bind
another socket to a link-local to talk to this destination..

>  This is consistent with the scope_id check I mentioned in
> the previous mail.  If the socket is not bound to a link local
> address, the bound_scope_id is 0.  So if the socket is used to
> send to a link local address (which has a non-zero scope_id), the
> check will catch it and fail the call.  A new conn should not
> be created in this case.