netdev - Re: [PATCH] Fix 2.6.34-rc1 regression in disable

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]

Date:	Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:20:33 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	shemminger@...tta.com
Cc:	ebiederm@...ssion.com, brian.haley@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	maheshkelkar@...il.com, lorenzo@...gle.com,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix 2.6.34-rc1 regression in disable_ipv6 support

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:16:11 -0800

> No but since removing address propagates up to user space daemons
> like Quagga please analyze and fix the problem, don't just look
> for band aid.

Stephen, we lived with the previous behavior for 12+ years.

You broke stuff that did work before your change.

Putting the onus on Eric to fix it exactly how you want it to
be fixed is therefore not appropriate.

You seem to be putting exactly zero effort into trying to reproduce
the problem yourself and fixing a bug you introduced.  And hey we
have a standard way to deal with a regression when the guilty party
is uncooperative, revert.

There are therefore three choices:

1) Revert.  And this is the one I'm favoring because of how you are
   handling this issue.  The responsibility to resolve this regression
   is your's not Eric's.

   Frankly, Eric is being incredibly nice by working on trying to fix
   a bug which you introduced.

2) Accept Eric's proposed fix.

3) Figure out the real bug yourself and fix the problem the way you
   find acceptable in a reasonable, short, amount of time.

Loopback has always been special, especially on ipv6.  When we don't
have a device to point something at, we point it at loopback.

Also destination cache entries which still have references when they
get zapped get pointed at loopback.
--
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