| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <2FBB0F50-8763-4A17-8734-5940FC3FF26A@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:12:48 -0500 From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com> To: Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com> Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, arvidjaar@...l.ru, vladislav.yasevich@...com, tytso@....edu, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, rjw@...k.pl, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, jamagallon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bonding: move IPv6 support into a separate kernel module On Feb 26, 2009, at Feb 26, 2009, 3:01 PM, Brian Haley wrote: > Chuck Lever wrote: >>> I think changing ipv6 to support a disable_ipv6 module parameter >>> like Vlad suggested would work, as long as we're not worried about >>> someone opening an AF_INET6 socket - even if they do they won't >>> get anywhere. >> In this case, if IPV6ONLY is set on an AF_INET6 listener, it should >> still get AF_INET traffic, correct? > > No, it should get nothing, and a send should get ENETUNREACH. Sorry, I got my logic backwards. If IPV6ONLY is intentionally cleared on an AF_INET6 socket, it should still be able to handle AF_INET traffic. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists