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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <OF1A09F28B.15E7E7BC-ON8825779E.00741A65-8825779E.007540E3@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:20:40 -0700 From: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com> To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fw: [Bug 18212] New: force_igmp_version ignored when a IGMPv3 query received (+1 line patch) netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org wrote on 09/10/2010 09:19:36 AM: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18212 > > Summary: force_igmp_version ignored when a IGMPv3 query > received (+1 line patch) > > Created an attachment (id=29512) > --> (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=29512) > fix force_igmp_version v3 query problem > > After all these years, it turns out that the > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/force_igmp_version > parameter isn't fully implemented. I don't think it's correct to send a v2 response to a v3 query in any case. The question for answering v3 queries was whether to answer them with a v3 report, or to drop them and ignore them when force_igmp_version==2. I chose to respond, but I can see the case for dropping it too. I don't agree that a v3 query should be answered with a v2 resport (a real v2 host would drop it). +-DLS -- 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