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: <20100914.142418.149835514.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:24:18 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: dlstevens@...ibm.com Cc: shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Bug 18212] New: force_igmp_version ignored when a IGMPv3 query received (+1 line patch) From: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:20:40 -0700 > 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). Do you have an alternative patch to suggest? -- 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