netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] bonding: move IPv6 support into a separate kernel module

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:	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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html