netdev - Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20110407.194420.193709030.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	swmike@....pp.se
Cc:	iubica2@...oo.com, ketil@...yn.name, linux-net@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the
 incoming ICMP echo request?

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@....pp.se>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:02:53 +0200 (CEST)

> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, andrei radulescu-banu wrote:
> 
>> But here's a problem: the kernel supports only up to 256 route
>> domains, and I'd like to be able to use more interfaces than that,
>> physical plus virtual.
> 
> Sounds like that 256 limit should be the thing to be looked into then.

That limit was removed ages ago.

I notice that when discussions occur on this list, a lot of misinformation
gets spread around.

The problem is that the actual networking developers don't read this list,
they read netdev@...r.kernel.org instead.

Maybe it's time that we just get rid of linux-net because it's been nothing
but problematic as users search for information on it and very few people
on that list are knowledgable enough to even consider answering.

--
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