netdev - interface down: v6/v4 address deletion difference

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0808142017050.23001@netcore.fi>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:25:11 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: interface down: v6/v4 address deletion difference 

Hi,

I recall there was discussion about this a couple of years back, but I 
couldn't find it for all I could try.

There seems to be a difference in how v4/v6 addresses are handled when 
interface goes down (manually added addresses are gone forever 
regardless of whether it's tentative or nor; link local address is 
deleted but reappears when link is back).

Example on 2.6.25.10-86.fc9 using pan0 interface (just because it's 
easiest to play with it):

# ip l set up dev pan
# ip a a 10.0.0.1/24 dev pan0
# ip -6 a a 2001::1/64 dev pan0
# ip a l dev pan0
8: pan0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue 
state UNKNOWN
     link/ether 36:ca:62:2a:71:7b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
     inet 10.0.0.1/24 scope global pan0
     inet6 2001::1/64 scope global
        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
     inet6 fe80::34ca:62ff:fe2a:717b/64 scope link
        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
# ip l set down dev pan0
# ip a l dev pan0
8: pan0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN
     link/ether 36:ca:62:2a:71:7b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
     inet 10.0.0.1/24 scope global pan0
# ip l set up dev pan0
# ip a l dev pan0
8: pan0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue 
state UNKNOWN
     link/ether 36:ca:62:2a:71:7b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
     inet 10.0.0.1/24 scope global pan0
     inet6 fe80::34ca:62ff:fe2a:717b/64 scope link tentative
        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
(and after a while 'tentative' flag goes away)

Shouldn't behaviour be consistent across v4/v6?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html