netdev - Re: echo > 0 .../disable_ipv6 broken in 2.6.37-rc4

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: <20101208154932.5bc4b254@nehalam>
Date:	Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:49:32 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Mahesh Kelkar <maheshkelkar@...il.com>,
	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: echo > 0 .../disable_ipv6 broken in 2.6.37-rc4

On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:13:30 -0800
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com> writes:
> 
> > This got broken in 2.6.34-rc1, and the most obvious culprit is this,
> > although I haven't bisected it:
> >
> > commit dc2b99f71ef477a31020511876ab4403fb7c4420
> > Author: stephen hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> > Date:   Mon Feb 8 19:48:05 2010 +0000
> >
> >     IPv6: keep permanent addresses on admin down
> >
> >     Permanent IPV6 addresses should not be removed when the link is
> >     set to admin down, only when device is removed.
> >
> >     When link is lost permanent addresses should be marked as tentative
> >     so that when link comes back they are subject to duplicate address
> >     detection (if DAD was enabled for that address).
> >
> >     Other routing systems keep manually configured IPv6 addresses
> >     when link is set down.
> >
> > Even though there was a bugfix update, it didn't help.
> >
> > I unfortunately won't be able to look at this more until at least Friday,
> > I couldn't come up with a quick patch just looking quickly at
> > addrconf_ifdown().
> 
> This is almost certainly it.
> ip link set lo down
> ip link set lo up
> 
> Is enough to break ping6 ::1.
> 
> I get the feeling the loopback address was not actually tested and
> there is something different about it.

Loopback is already handled as special case in addrconf. Look at IFF_LOOPBACK
perhaps there is a logic error there.


-- 
--
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