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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:29:09 +0100 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> To: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> Cc: Sohny Thomas <sthomas@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, davem@...emloft.net, kumuda <kumuda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: default route for link local address is not added while assigning a address Sorry for replying so late... On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:38:47AM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: > Le 29/01/2014 07:41, Sohny Thomas a écrit : > >Resending this on netdev mailing list: > >Default route for link local address is configured automatically if > >NETWORKING_IPV6=yes is in ifcfg-eth*. > >When the route table for the interface is flushed and a new address is > >added to > >the same device with out removing linklocal addr, default route for link > >local > >address has to added by default. > > > >I have found the issue to be caused by this checkin > > > >http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/net/ipv6?id=62b54dd91567686a1cb118f76a72d5f4764a86dd > > > > > >According to this change : > >He removes adding a link local route if any other address is added , > >applicable > >across all interfaces though there's mentioned only lo interface > >So below patch fixes for other devices > > > >Signed-off-by: Sohny THomas <sohthoma@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > Your email client has corrupted the patch, it cannot be applied. > Please read Documentation/email-clients.txt > > About the patch, I still think that the flush is too agressive. Link local > routes are marked as 'proto kernel', removing them without the link local > address is wrong. Actually I am not so sure, there is no defined semantic of flush. I would be ok with all three solutions: leave it as is, always add link-local address (it does not matter if we don't have a link-local address on that interface, as a global scoped one is just fine enough) or make flush not remove the link-local address (but this seems a bit too special cased for me). Greetings, Hannes -- 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