netdev - Re: [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback down

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:	Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:01:23 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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: [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback down

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:56:32 +0100
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:38:17AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz> wrote:
> > > I have the feeling that Eric's patch is the safest solution we
> > > have so far:
> > Eric's patch has other regressions, see the discussion.
> 
> What regression do you mean? I have read the whole discussion
> thoroughly. You only say in one message that deleting ::1 would
> propagate to routing daemons. And Eric correctly stated that
> people couldn't hit this, because  deleting ::1 would break
> things on its own.
> 
> Is there a real problem with Eric's fix?
> 
> Thanks,
> 

If address is assigned to loopback interface (other than ::1) then
Eric's fix doesn't work.  It is common to use an additional address
on the lo device when doing routing protocols.
--
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