netdev - Re: [Patch net-next v3 3/4] vxlan: add ipv6 support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <OF357ECAC4.3A0B75DA-ON85257B4E.0048447C-85257B4E.0049F64D@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:27:45 -0400
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v3 3/4] vxlan: add ipv6 support

Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote on 04/09/2013 06:47:26 AM:

> From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> To: David Stevens/Beaverton/IBM@...US
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
> Date: 04/09/2013 06:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v3 3/4] vxlan: add ipv6 support
> 
> On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 08:53 -0400, David Stevens wrote:
> >         With your current definitions, "sin6" is just an in6_addr, but
> > you are not checking the sin6_scope_id, which is not correct for IPv6
> > link-local addresses. You can rely on "ifindex" in vxlan_rdst for
> > fdb entries, but you'd at least need to make sure it is not 0 for LL
> > scope, and you still need sin6_scope_id to match for calls in 
> > vxlan_snoop()
> > and vxlan_group_used(). The same sin6_addr with different
> > sin6_scope_id
> > for link-local addrs is not the same address in v6. 
> 
> It seems this is not very easy to do, at least for me. So I will send
> another patch after this patcheset is merged, now let's not make this to
> be a blocker for this patchset.

Cong,
        I'm not sure if you mean you're withdrawing the v6 support patch,
or asking that we address link-local v6 addresses separately. I don't
think we want to have code in a distro that doesn't handle LL properly
without error when an LL address is added, and I also think a solution
may influence the netlink API, so I'd like to see LL support go in at
the same time as v6 support.
        I think we want essentially the same solution used in the socket
API, so the layout should be a sockaddr with the sin6_scope_id field
present and verified for the AF_INET6 family variant. It could be a
matching type with a different name if there are user-level include
issues as Dave referenced before.
        Then, if it's an AF_INET6 and a link-local sin6_addr, the
sin6_scope_id must be non-zero and a valid interface index, or return
error. Deleted interfaces could still result in stale fdb entries, but
those could be removed (or at least matching packets dropped) based on
the route failures they would cause during packet forwarding.

                                                                +-DLS

--
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