netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: ipv6: Allow netlink to set IPv6 address scope

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHo-OozPF1o0qD2PHHwskce=H4DpwR3FSTksLB31mF4K0Bdh4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:25:19 -0700
From:	Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
Cc:	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv6: Allow netlink to set IPv6 address scope

>> RFC 3879 deprecated site-local addresses because the were non-unique and thus
>> ambiguous, and if they leak, they cause problems. This is not an issue
>> in the use
>> case I presented, because the addresses are syntactically global
>> addresses - they
>> just don't have global reachability.
>
> Not very global then :(

They're globally unique.
Global does not imply being able to reach the internet, or being able
to be reached from the internet.

Whatever the RFC's say, that's just a sad fact of life.

>> I don't think it's a good idea. Waiting for an IETF working group to
>> produce a standard
>> when it doesn't even have a problem statement finalized could take years.
>
> It would be useful to give some input there, even if the Linux-specific
> implementation of any standard plays with bits in the ifaddr.

I'm afraid this is a real problem _right_ now, a solution is required
and we can't really afford to wait a year while working groups work
out a bugfix.

> In my opinion it just feels like a hack, because things won't work when your
> wifi attaches to a walled garden, or there's a third interface - who wins the
> tiebreaker?

I would tend to agree that this is a little hacky... but, ultimately,
I always claim that policy should belong in userspace - not in the
kernel.
If userspace administrator wants to shoot himself, he can do that in
plenty of ways already.

> I do see your point that it will help with the problem you're trying to solve,
> hopefully someone else will offer their opinion.

I'm a little biased here, but I'd prefer my cellphone to just work ;-)

- Maciej
--
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