linux-kernel - Re: IPv6 multicast forwarding

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0810241307360.1106@netcore.fi>
Date:	Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
To:	Alejandro Riveira Fernández 
	<ariveira@...il.com>
cc:	Todd Hayton <todd.hayton@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 multicast forwarding

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote:
>> Let me apologize in advance for the length of this message - it is long!
>>
>> I'm trying to test out IPv6 multicast forwarding on a 2.6.26 kernel
>> and I'm getting some strange values for the upcall messages from the
>> kernel. My code is below, but to give an overview, my setup is as
>> follows:
>>
>>     sender ------ ff15::1 -----> [eth1] linux 2.6.26 [eth0] ------> ...

Maybe this isn't the bug you're looking for but you shouldn't be using 
ff1x multicast addresses in a test like this; ff1x means that the 
multicast group is of "interface-local scope" and it isn't useful for 
multicast forwarding.  So the kernel might be correct in not 
installing multicast forwarding state for a group address like this 
(but if it's a conscious decision, maybe the failure mode should be 
better).  See S 2.7 of RFC4291.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings