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:	Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:26:24 +1100
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, stephen.hemminger@...tta.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, jbohac@...e.cz, 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 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:24:16 +1100
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:42:54 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com>
> > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:41:12 -0800 (PST)
> > 
> > > Having IPv6 remove all addresses when link goes down is fundamentally broken
> > > that is what the original problem being fixed. For users on servers or using
> > > Quagga this matters, how do you plan to fix that?
> > 
> > How about in a way that doesn't break stuff?
> > 
> > And it's been beyond proven that people give more of a crap
> > about disable_ipv6 than the thing you keep claiming is a big deal.
> > 
> > NOBODY other than you even noticed the issue or made a report about
> > it.
> > 
> > Yet we have people actively complaining about disable_ipv6 being
> > broken.
> > 
> > So you lose on two counts.  You can't fix things by breaking other
> > stuff, and your obscure stuff matters less than things people
> > actually notice being broken.
> 
> You are probably so upset because I stepped on code you worked hard
> on. But the IPv6 semantics should not have been different from IPv4
> and the disable_ipv6 flag was a poor API choice as well. Legacy
> API's suck, I don't expect perfection but it should be possible
> to make a working version that:
> 
> Allows disabling IPv6 completely on an interface
> AND Has the same address and route semantics for both
> IPv4 and IPv6.

Also for application sanity, Linux should behave the same as BSD
--
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