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  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, 17 Jan 2014 14:04:26 +0530
From:	sohny thomas <sohny.kernel@...il.com>
To:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	kumuda <kumuda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: ipv6: default route for link local address is not added while
 assigning a address

Hi All,

Any updates on my reply, Any more info is required.
Can this be pulled into the kernel tree?

Thanks & Regards,
Sohny


On Monday 13 January 2014 02:19 PM, sohny thomas wrote:
> On Friday 10 January 2014 10:46 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:33:08PM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>>> CC: netdev
>>>
>>> Le 10/01/2014 13:20, sohny thomas a écrit :
>>>> Default route for link local address is configured automatically if
>>>> NETWORKING_IPV6=yes is in ifcfg-eth*.
>>>> When the route table for the interface is flushed and a new address is
>>>> added to
>>>> the same device with out removing linklocal addr, default route for
>>>> link
>>>> local
>>>> address has to added by default.
>>> I would say that removing the link local route but not the link local
>>> address
>>> is a configuration problem.
>>> If you remove a connected route but not the associated address, you will
>>> have
>>> the same problem.
>> We have some user accessible routes that are essential for IPv6 stack
>> to work at all. So I don't know if I can agree with that.
>>
>> Maybe flush is a bit too aggressive?
>>
> Hi ,
>
> Thank you for the inputs.
>
> In the test for ipv6 default address selection , we are testing the rule
> 2 as specified in RFC 6724
>
>    If Scope(SA) < Scope(SB): If Scope(SA) < Scope(D), then prefer SB
>      and otherwise prefer SA.
>      Similarly, if Scope(SB) < Scope(SA): If Scope(SB) < Scope(D), then
>      prefer SA and otherwise prefer SB.
>
> Test:
>
>    Check 04:
>       Destination: ff08::2(OS)
>       Candidate Source Addresses: fec0::1(SS) or LLA(LS)
>       Result: fec0::1(SS)
>
>       Scope(LLA) < Scope(fec0::1): If Scope(LLA) < Scope(ff08::2),  yes,
> prefer fec0::1
>
>
> Now in the test its flushing all the routes and adding an address ,
> which in causes to add route into the routing table including the link
> local routes.
> Earlier in 2.6.32 it used to work fine now due to the above mentioned
> check-in this is not happening
>
> Of course we can still just delete a route and add , but even if we
> delete the link local route, IMHO i think it should update the LLA route
> when the interface is next added an address or bought up which ever is
> the case.
>
> Regards,
> Sohny
>
>

--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists