netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v10 10/11] vxlan: respect 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:20:54 -0400
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 10/11] vxlan: respect scope_id for ll addr

netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org wrote on 08/28/2013 01:22:58 AM:

> From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
 
> As pointed out by David, we should take care of scope id for ll
> addr, and use it for route lookup.

        It is an error to have a zero scope_id for an LL addr, but
this code is not correct, because it only honors scope_id for
LL addrs. Multicast addresses also require scope_id be set.
        This shouldn't be in the transmit path. The netlink code
that sets it should require it be nonzero for LL addrs and multicast
addrs when it is set, and the transmit path should *always* use scope_id,
whether for an lladdr or not, whether scope_id is zero or not.

        I'm away this week and won't be able to review these in
detail until next week, but wanted to get that comment in.

                                                +-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