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: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:06:17 +0100 From: Nick Hilliard <nick@...x.ie> To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org> CC: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, davem@...emloft.net, Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IPv6: Generic TTL Security Mechanism (original version) On 05/04/2010 05:48, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: > I am for 1/3 (original), not for 2/3, 3/3. > > Because we should allow users to set respective value > for IPv4 and IPv6, as we allow users to do so for TTL > and hoplimit itself. <non-linux-user> I concur. ipv4 mapped addresses need special handling in lots of cases, and I don't believe that patch 2/3 adds anything here - except possibly confusion. Regarding case 3/3, ipv4 and ipv6 are separate protocols. Treating them as the same from the setsockopt() point of view is a clear case of the Wrong Thing. </non-linux-user> Case 1/3 is IMO a better approach. It satisfies both KISS (keep it simple...) and POLA (principle of least astonishment). Nick -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists