netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] IPv6: Generic TTL Security Mechanism (original version)

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]

Message-ID: <4BBA34A9.6080802@inex.ie>
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