netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: judge the accept_ra_defrtr before calling rt6_route

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]

Message-ID: <20131129060945.GJ24171@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:09:45 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: judge the accept_ra_defrtr before calling rt6_route_rcv

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote:
> 
> when dealing with a RA message, if accept_ra_defrtr is false,
> the kernel will not add the default route, and then deal with
> the following route information options. Unfortunately, those
> options maybe contain default route, so let's judge the
> accept_ra_defrtr before calling rt6_route_rcv.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>

I am ambivalent regarding this change.

accept_ra_defrtr protected against adding default routers without routing
options and accept_ra_rt_info_max_plen == -1 disables the acceptance of any
routing options in router advertisments.

I don't have an idea why we need this distinction altough I once used it for
testing. But because this change makes it more understandable for users I am
ok with that.

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
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