netdev - Re: [DISCUSSION] rt6i

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:	Fri, 19 Jul 2013 02:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	fan.du@...driver.com
Cc:	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] rt6i_genid

From: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:50:20 +0800

> The original commit is targeted for XFRM policy inserting/removing,
> but it uses net genid shared by both IPv4 and IPv6, the side effect is
> add/delete IPv4 address will invalidate IPv6 dst in all.
> 
> We *do* need to bump genid when add/delete IPv6 address in scenario I
> described here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg243398.html,
> but definitely not from add/delete IPv4 address. Moreover test shows
> that DCCP still push thousands of packets on wire after delete its
> IPv6
> address in the same scenario I describe before.
> 
> The impulse to bump genid for IPv6 is much more stronger after this
> commit even do it unintentionally.

If you really think it will help, and it will still handle the IPSEC
case, you can make a seperate genid for ipv4 and ipv6 but that might not
work out so cleanly.

--
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