netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ipv6 addrconf: add IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE flag to suppress creation of IP6 routes

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:	Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:22:03 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Thomas Haller <thaller@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, dcbw@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ipv6 addrconf: add IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE flag to suppress creation of IP6 routes

Hi Thomas!

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:14:34PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> I am about to resent the patch, so that IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE is saved in
> the flags of the address. Later, when deleting such address, this is
> used to indicate ~not~ to delete any prefix route... just as you suggest
> in your earlier email (if I understood you right).

Ok, good.

> About this suggestion now, I tend to "no". Yes, it could be sensible, on
> the other hand, if user space already controls the routes (as indicated
> by it's use of IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTES), I would just leave it to the user
> to clean up the wrong prefix route.
>
> What do you think?

It is a matter of usability. As prefix routes are added to main routing
table and are visible via simple ip -6 r l (and not ip -6 r l table
something), I am fine with that, too.

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